Cognitive impairment in people with multiple sclerosis: Perception vs. performance – factors that drive perception of impairment differ for patients and clinicians
Date
2023
Authors
Jackson, D.A.
Nicholson, R.
Bergmann, C.
Wilken, J.
Kaczmarek, O.
Bumstead, B.
Buhse, M.
Zarif, M.
Penner, I.-K.
Hancock, L.M.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Journal article
Citation
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 2023; 69:104410-1-104410-8
Statement of Responsibility
Daija A. Jackson, Rachel Nicholson, Catherine Bergmann, Jeffrey Wilken, Olivia Kaczmarek, Barbara Bumstead, Marijean Buhse, Myassar Zarif, Iris-Katharina Penner, Laura M. Hancock, Daniel Golan, Glen M. Doniger, Hans Bogaardt, Marissa Barrera, Thomas J. Covey, Mark Gudesblatt
Conference Name
Abstract
Background: Neurologists’ perceptions of the presence of cognitive impairment (CI) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) may not always align with findings of objective cognitive assessment. The accuracy of selfreported CI in PwMS can also be highly variable across individuals, and may not align with objective measurement of cognitive disturbances. Research suggests that additional factors impact perceived cognitive ability, such as depression and fatigue. Objective cognitive screening regardless of patient or neurologist perception has been recommended but still is often limited in routine care. Moreover, comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is even less routinely done. Objective: To explore how neurologists’ perceptions of PwMS’ CI compare to the perception of the patient by determining whether PwMS and their clinicians are accurate in detecting the presence and degree of CI as defined by a multi-domain validated computerized test battery in PwMS, as well as investigate what factors influence perception of CI in each group. Methods: PwMS completed a computerized multi-domain cognitive testing battery, and self-reported measures of disease impact (MSIS-29), fatigue (MFIS), and depression (BDI-II). Disability was assessed by the clinician using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Clinicians and patients also provided an estimation of cognitive deficits along a Likert scale. Results: In this cohort of PwMS (N=202, age range: 20 to 88, gender: 71% female), their level of accuracy in detecting attention deficits (k = -.028, p = .010) was low but statistically significant. In contrast, clinicians’ accuracy in detecting global CI (k = -.037, p < .001) and a number of specific domain deficits was moderate. Fatigue (p < .001) and cognitive performance (p = .012) significantly predicted patient perceived cognitive deficits. Clinician perceived cognitive performance was significantly predicted by multiple factors: cognitive scores (p < .001), physical disability (p = .011), age (p = .021), and depression (p = .038). Conclusion: The need to objectively screen for CI in PwMS, regardless of perception, can be aided by a better understanding of the agreement and discrepancies between the patient and clinician regarding perceived cognitive disturbances and the presence of CI defined by a multi-dimensional objective screening battery.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Access Status
Rights
© Elsevier 2023