Premium
P1‐520: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN REY AUDITORY VERBAL LEARNING TEST (AVLT) AND UPPER EXTREMITY DUAL TASK FUNCTION IN DETECTING COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT
Author(s) -
Zamrini Edward,
Fakhoury Sarah,
Gaytan-Jenkins Daniel,
Lopez Anthony,
Ehsani Hossein,
Belden Christi,
O'Connor Kathy,
Mohler Jane,
Toosizadeh Nima
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.531
Subject(s) - audiology , psychology , cognition , verbal learning , recall , physical medicine and rehabilitation , medicine , cognitive psychology , psychiatry
Background: Longitudinal population-based studies face the difficulty of loss of participants between examinations. Differences in characteristics of returning and non-returning participants need to be considered. The current literature suggests that throughout the course of longitudinal studies, returning participants might show better cognitive performance than non-returners. Thus, we compared the cognitive performance of continuous study participants and non-returners in a population-based cohort study. Methods:We examined participants out of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study (T0: 2000-2003, n1⁄44814; T1: 2006-2008, n1⁄44175; T2: 2011-2015, n1⁄43087). Assessment of cognitive performance was implemented at T1 using five tests (immediate and delayed verbal recall, verbal fluency, [higher scores indicating better performance], Labyrinthtest, Clock-drawing test, [higher scores indicating lower performance]). We compared participants returning at T2 (n1⁄42865, 63.267.3 years, 49% men) with non-returners (n1⁄41221, 66.967.9 years, 51% men) for all participants with complete cognitive data at T1. Sociodemographic characteristic and cardiovascular risk factors were compared using Mann-WhitneyU test or Pearsons’s Chi square-test. Cognitive performance was compared using multivariate analysis of (co)variance (adjustment: age, gender, education, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, smoke status, score on depression scale, hypertension (JNC VII) category, coronary heart disease and stroke). Results: Non-returners were older, had fewer years of education, a history of stroke and coronary heart disease, a higher BMI andmore depressive symptoms than returners. Non-returners were more often smoker, hypertensive and diabetic. Multivariate analyses showed a main effect of participation on cognition (unadjusted F(5, 4080)1⁄484.30, p<0.001; fully adjusted F(5, 3847)1⁄428.94, p<0.001). Non-returners performed worse in all five tests, even in the fully adjusted model (for mean, standard deviation and parameter estimates see Table 1). Conclusions:At a time during the study where the further participation is not yet determined, non-returners showed a higher rate of sociodemographic and cardiovascular risk factors and worse cognitive performance than returners. Interestingly, the observed difference in cognitive performancewas not attributable to worse socioeconomic and health status. For future analyses, different reasons for drop out (death, sickness, refusal, lack of contact) need to be examined.