Advertisement

Comprehension of written texts for the assessment of clinical competence and decision making in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

  • Valentina MoroEmail author
  • Valeria Valbusa
  • Nicole Corsi
  • A. Bonazzi
  • Maria Teresa Condoleo
  • Elisabetta Broggio
  • Giuseppe Gambina
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Clinical competence is the term used to describe an individual’s capacity to express a choice regarding their participation in clinical procedures or experimental studies. Understanding the information provided is a prerequisite but consent forms are often lengthy and complicated. Alzheimer’s disease patients may be vulnerable in written comprehension, due to cognitive deficits, but unfortunately to date, a specific evaluation of this ability is not included in periodical assessments.

Methods

One hundred thirty Italian patients with Alzheimer’s disease were compared with 130 controls in a comprehension task involving a simplified informed consent form. Their performance in this task was compared with their performance with two other types of reading material (a testament and a history text). In addition, the performance of a subgroup of very mild patients in this test was compared with their performance in a widely used interview for the assessment of clinical competence (MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research).

Results

Good sensitivity and specificity of the cut-offs identified consent form and the other texts as good instruments for evaluation of written comprehension. The comprehension of consent form may be compromised since the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, a simplified, written text may help patients in comparison with interviews (MacCAT-CR). Better performance was correlated to the standard of education and better cognitive functions.

Conclusion

Deficits regarding the comprehension of written texts and the consent form may be early in Alzheimer’s disease patients and need to be investigated during periodical neuropsychological assessment. Comprehension may be facilitated by means of specific simplification strategies.

Keywords

Clinical competence Reading comprehension assessment Anosognosia Alzheimer’s disease Decision Making 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. Andreoli, F. Ferrari, and F. Sala for their help with patient recruitment and testing and for their useful comments regarding the first version of the questionnaire.

Funding information

This research was supported by the Fondazione Cariverona (Neuroscience Project Disabilità cognitive e comportamentali nelle demenze e nelle psicosi -Cognitive and behavioral disabilities in dementia and psychoses – Prot. N. 1855) and by CEMS (Centro Medico Specialistico, Verona Memory Center Project). VM is funded by the Italian Ministry of University; Instruction and Research (Project Code PRIN 2015 - prot. 20159CZFJK).

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (AOUI, Pt n. 2238/2012).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Appelbaum PS (2007) Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 357:1834–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jongsma KR, Van de Vathorst S (2015) Beyond competence: advance directives in dementia research. Monash Bioethics Review 33:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanchini V, Reni M, Calori G, Riva E, Reichlin M (2014) Informed consent as an ethical requirement in clinical trials: an old, but still unresolved issue. An observational study to evaluate patient’s informed consent comprehension. Journal of Medical Ethics 40:269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging – American Psychological Association (2008).Assessment of older adults with diminished capacity: a handbook for psychologists.Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Appelbaum PS & Grisso T (2001) MacCAT-CR. MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Professional Resource Press:Sarasota, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC (2001) Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(2):139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeste DV, Palmer BW, Appelbaum PS, Golshan S, Glorioso D, Dunn LB, Kim K, Meeks T, Kraemer HC (2007) A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64(8):966–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gurrera RJ, Moye J, Karel MJ, Azar AR, Armesto JC (2006) Cognitive performance predicts treatment decisional abilities in mild to moderate dementia. Neurology 66:1367–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stormoen S, Almkvist O, Eriksdotter M, Sundström E, Tallberg IM (2014) Cognitive predictors of medical decision-making capacity in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr 29:1304–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gambina G, Bonazzi A, Valbusa V, Condoleo M, Bortolami O, Broggio E, Sala F, Moretto G, Moro V (2014) Awareness of cognitive deficits and clinical competence in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: their relevance in clinical practice. Neurol Sci 35(3):385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sreenivasan G (2003) Does informed consent to research require comprehension? Lancet 362:2016–2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Appelbaum PS (2010) Understanding “understanding”: an important step toward improving informed consent to research. AJOB primary research 1(2):1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2010.499322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) Mini Mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKahnn G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM (1984) Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Service Task Force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 34:939–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, Dekosky ST, Barberger-Gateau P, Cummings J, Delacourte A, Galasko D, Gauthier S, Jicha G, Meguro K, O’Brien J, Pasquier F, Robert P, RossorM SS, Stern Y, Visser PJ, Scheltens P (2007) Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. Lancet Neurol 6:734–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Starkstein SE, Jorge R, Mizrahi R, Robinson RG (2006) A diagnostic formulation for anosognosia in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77:719–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW (1963) Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychological function. Journal of American Medical Association 185:914–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawton MP, Brody EM (1969) Assessment of older people: self -maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spinnler H, Tognoni G (1987) Standardizzazione e Taratura Italiana di Test Neuropsicologici. Ital J Neurol Sci 6(Suppl 8):27–34Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raven JC, CourtJH RJ (1988) Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford Psychologists, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlesimo GA, Caltagirone C, Gainotti G (1996) The mental deterioration battery: normative data, diagnostic reliability and qualitative analysis of cognitive impairment. The group for the standardization of mental deterioration battery. Eur Neurol 36:378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giovagnoli AR, Del Pesce M, Mascheroni S, Simoncelli M, Laiacona M, Capitani E (1996) Trail making test: normative values from 287 normal adult controls. Ital J Neurol Sci 17:305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheikh JI, Yesavage A (1986) Geriatric depression scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version. In: Brink TL (ed) Clinical gerontology: a guide to assessment and intervention. Haworth, New York, pp 165–173Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cummings JL (1997) The neuropsychiatric inventory: assessing psychopathology in dementia patients. Neurology 48(5Suppl 6):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Starkstein SE, Migliorelli R, Manes F, Teson A, Petracca G, Chemerinski E, Sabe L, Leiguarda R (1995) The prevalence and clinical correlates of apathy and irritability in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Neurol 2:540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gambina G, Valbusa V, Corsi N, Ferrari F, Sala F, Broggio E, CondoleoMT SV, Errera P, Cagnin AC, Moretto G, Moro V (2015) The Italian validation of the anosognosia questionnaire for dementia in Alzheimer’s disease. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementia 30(6):635–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, Müller M (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12:77.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-77 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39(4):561–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240(4857):1285–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pernigo S, Gambina G, Valbusa V, Condoleo MT, Broggio E, Beltramello A, Moretto G, Moro V (2015) Behavioral and neural correlates of visual emotion discrimination and empathy in mild cognitive impairment. Behav Brain Res 294:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murphy DA, O’Keefe ZH, Kaufman AH (2009) Improving comprehension and recall of information for an HIV vaccine trial among women at risk for HIV: Reading level simplification and inclusion of pictures to illustrate key concepts. AIDS Educ Prev 11(5):389–399Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jefferson AL, Lambe S, Moser DJ, Byerly LK, Ozonoff A, Karlawish JH (2008) Decisional capacity for research participation in individuals with mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:1236–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sand K, Kaasa S, Håvard Loge J (2010) The understanding of informed consent information—definitions and measurements in empirical studies. A JOB Primary Research 1(2):4–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21507711003771405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benatar JR, Mortimer J, Stretton M, Stewart RAH (2012) A booklet on participants’ rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial. PLoS ONE 7(10):e47023.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.004702 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bayard S, Jacus JP, Raffard S, Gely-Nargeot MC (2015) Conscious knowledge and decision making under ambiguity in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 29(4):357–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Paris A, Deygas B, Cornu C, Thalamas C, Maison P, Duale C, Kane M, Hodaj E, Cracowski JL (2015) Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients’ understanding but reduce enrolment: a study in real settings. Br J Clin Pharmacol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moro V, Condoleo MT, Sala F, Pernigo S, Moretto G, Gambina G (2012) Cognitive stimulation in a-MCI: an experimental study. American Journal of Alzheimer disease and Other Dementias 27(2):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moro V, Condoleo MT, Valbusa V, Broggio E, Moretto G, Gambina G (2015) Cognitive stimulation of executive functions in mild cognitive impairment: specific efficacy and impact in memory. American Journal of Alzheimer disease and Other Dementias 30(2):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cosentino S, Metcalfe J, Cary MS, De Leon J, Karlawish J (2011) Memory awareness influences everyday decision making capacity about medication management in Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. Article ID 483897.  https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/483897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Berger O, Grønberg BH, Sand K, Kaasa S, Loge H (2009) The length of consent documents in oncological trials is doubled in twenty years. Ann Oncol 20(2):379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seaman JB, Terhorst L, Gentry A, Hunsaker A, Parker LS, Lingler JH (2015) Psychometric properties of a decisional capacity screening tool for individuals contemplating participation in Alzheimer’s disease research. Journal of Alzheimers Disease 46(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NPSY.Lab-VR, Department of Human SciencesUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.Alzheimer’s Disease CenterNeurology A University Hospital of VeronaVeronaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Motor SciencesUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  4. 4.Verona Memory Center, CEMSVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations