Effect of agitation and aggression on quality of life in patients with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are highly prevalent in patients with dementia during the course of the disease. Among BPSD symptoms, agitation and aggression are a source of distress for both the patients and their caregivers. In this study, we investigated the impact of agitation and aggression on Quality of Life (QoL) of patients with dementia living in long‐term care homes or admitted to psychiatric inpatient units. Method Data were obtained from the Standardizing Care for Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Quality of Life in Dementia (StaN) study, a multisite trial conducted in Canada. Agitation and aggression were assessed with the Cohen‐Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Clinician rating scale (NPI‐C); QoL with the informant‐rated Alzheimer’s Disease Related Quality of Life (ADRQL) tool; stage of dementia with the Functional Assessment Staging Tool (FAST); and burden of physical illness with the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale‐Geriatric (CIRS‐G). Regressions were performed to investigate the associations between agitation or aggression and QoL controlling for demographic factors, FAST score, and CIRS‐G score. Result 179 participants were included (52.5% female; mean (SD) age = 80.79 (9.45) years. The ADRQL score was correlated with: (1) CMAI total frequency score (Pearson’s r = ‐.333, p<.001); (2) NPI‐C agitation score (Pearson’s r = ‐.209, p = .005); and (3) NPI‐C aggression score (Pearson’s r = ‐.300, p<.001). The associations remained significant for the CMAI total frequency score (β = ‐.235, SE B = 0.054, p<.001), and NPI‐C agitation and aggression composite score (β = ‐.288, SE B = 1.254, p<.001) after controlling for age, sex, current residence, FAST score and CIRS‐G score. Conclusion QoL is related to agitation and aggression in patients with dementia. The relationship is independent of demographic factors, stage of dementia, and burden of comorbid physical illness. This suggests that better management of agitation and aggression may be an important factor in improving QoL in patients with dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".