MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1480964569 · doi:10.1111/hiv.12130

Routine screening for cognitive and psychological impairment in <scp>HIV</scp>‐infected patients

2014· letter· en· W1480964569 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen A. Spencer, Ed Wilkins

Notice bibliographique

RevueHIV Medicine · 2014
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueHIV Research and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDementiaNeurocognitiveMedicineReferralNeuropsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychiatryNeuropsychological assessmentCognitive declineCognitive impairmentFamily medicineClinical psychologyDiseasePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This letter refers to the paper titled ‘Limitations to the identification of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders in clinical practice’ by Morley et al. (2013) 1. The authors raised a very important point regarding the necessity for a quick and easy to use screening tool for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND). Screening HIV-infected patients for cognitive decline and psychological well-being should be the impetus of the clinician rather than solely in response to cognitive or psychological complaints from the patient, and doctors should be proactive in ensuring this standard of care is achieved. The recent British HIV Association (BHIVA) ‘Standards of Care for People Living with HIV’ (2013) advises the initiation of routine screening for identification of cognitive and psychological impairment in HIV-infected patients. Patients who screen positive should be referred to appropriate neuropsychologists for accurate diagnosis via extensive neuropsychological testing 2. However, the screening tools currently available are difficult to implement into regular HIV care and there is a need for a new screening tool, which would be easy to use and patient friendly, and not impact on the overall duration of the consultation. Multiple screening tools have been utilized to help identify those who may require referral to neuropsychologists for diagnosis of HAND. Examples include the HIV Dementia Scale (HDS), the modified HIV Dementia Scale (mHDS), the international HIV Dementia Sclae (iHDS), the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as well as various computer assessments. These take more than 10 minutes to complete, and each has its own limitations narrowing its usefulness. The article discussed in this letter makes it clear that there is limited use for many of these screening tools in both genitourinary medicine and infectious disease out-patient clinics and in emergency department settings. This is because of time constraints, a lack of privacy, limited knowledge of the existence of HAND or the requirement for training. These issues are common hindrances to successful screening being achieved. A separate article not cited in the discussed paper by Simioni et al. (2011) reported a study that evaluated the efficacy of three very brief screening questions to identify patients who may be symptomatic for HAND, and yielded a specificity of 84% 3. This type of screening tool would fit the criteria of being quick and easy to use and readily available and, if presented as a questionnaire form, would have no requirements for training or impact patient privacy. Furthermore, this type of screening method could be highly adaptable for use in many hospital, out-patient or primary care settings. We developed and evaluated a method of screening for both depression and neurocognitive impairment in HIV-infected patients, the aim being to provide a new standard of care for our unit in line with national recommendations. A screening questionnaire of five questions was given to 100 patients during HIV out-patient clinic appointments. To assess the feasibility of implementing this tool in the clinic setting, all physicians who took part were asked to fill out a separate feedback questionnaire. Our results revealed that just over half of the patients screened positive for depression and approximately one-third for neurocognitive impairment. These rates are very similar to reported prevalence rates for these conditions in the HIV-infected population. Evaluation of the efficiency of implementing this questionnaire in the clinic revealed that it was highly suitable and met all the requirements set. Specifically, it was easy to complete, it acted as a prompt for clinicians to screen for mood and memory issues and it did not extend the overall duration of the clinic. This study was an evaluation of the service provided to HIV-infected patients, and on the basis of the results it was decided to set up a dedicated neurocognitive impairment service for HIV-infected patients, where neuropsychologists will be formally involved. All patients who screened positive were offered referral for assessment and appropriate diagnostic testing by the HIV-dedicated psychologists. Out of 33 patients who screened positive for neurocognitive impairment, 21 were referred for psychometric testing, of whom 16 have been seen over the 4 months since initial screening took place, four remain to be seen, and one sadly died prior to the appointment. Five of the patients who were not referred are under follow-up care by neuropsychology, and the remaining have not been referred either because they declined referral or the request for referral was not acted upon. From the list of 24 patients who screened positive for depression alone, one has been seen in the psychology out-patient department, one is booked for appointment, and the remaining 22 have not been seen: again, either as a result of failure in the pathway referral process or because they declined referral. Upon retrieval of the results from diagnostic testing, we will be able to more accurately determine the sensitivity and specificity rates of the proposed screening questionnaire. However, the apparent failure in the referral process underscores the need for a more efficient departmental system, which is now being realized with the introduction of a new database. Combining these five questions fulfils the level of screening recommended in the BHIVA Standards of Care and is a validated and effective method for identifying significant depression and neurocognitive dysfunction requiring further referral and specific management. In our hands, it has been easy to incorporate into everyday clinic use and has not been obtrusive to patient, physician, or overall consultation time.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,142
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,313
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHIV MedicineMême sujetHIV Research and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207