Data_Sheet_1_Everyday Functioning in a Community-Based Volunteer Population: Differences Between Participant- and Study Partner-Report.docx (258.47 kB)
Download file

Data_Sheet_1_Everyday Functioning in a Community-Based Volunteer Population: Differences Between Participant- and Study Partner-Report.docx

Download (258.47 kB)
posted on 05.01.2022, 13:27 by Merike Verrijp, Mark A. Dubbelman, Leonie N. C. Visser, Roos J. Jutten, Elke W. Nijhuis, Marissa D. Zwan, Hein P. J. van Hout, Philip Scheltens, Wiesje M. van der Flier, Sietske A. M. Sikkes

Introduction: Impaired awareness in dementia caused by Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders made study partner-report the preferred method of measuring interference in “instrumental activities of daily living” (IADL). However, with a shifting focus toward earlier disease stages and prevention, the question arises whether self-report might be equally or even more appropriate. The aim of this study was to investigate how participant- and study partner-report IADL perform in a community-based volunteer population without dementia and which factors relate to differences between participant- and study partner-report.

Methods: Participants (N = 3,288; 18–97 years, 70.4% females) and their study partners (N = 1,213; 18–88 years, 45.8% females) were recruited from the Dutch Brain Research Registry. IADL were measured using the Amsterdam IADL Questionnaire. The concordance between participant- and study partner-reported IADL difficulties was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Multinomial logistic regressions were used to investigate which demographic, cognitive, and psychosocial factors related to participant and study partner differences, by looking at the over- and underreport of IADL difficulties by the participant, relative to their study partner.

Results: Most A-IADL-Q scores represented no difficulties for both participants (87.9%) and study partners (89.4%). The concordance between participants and study partners was moderate (ICC = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.51, 0.59]); 24.5% (N = 297) of participants overreported their IADL difficulties compared with study partners, and 17.8% (N = 216) underreported difficulties. The presence of depressive symptoms (odds ratio [OR] = 1.31, 95% CI = [1.12, 1.54]), as well as memory complaints (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = [1.80, 3.34]), increased the odds of participants overreporting their IADL difficulties. Higher IADL ratings decreased the odds of participant underreport (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.67, 0.74]).

Conclusion: In this sample of community-based volunteers, most participants and study partners reported no major IADL difficulties. Differences between participant and study partner were, however, quite prevalent, with subjective factors indicative of increased report of IADL difficulties by the participant in particular. These findings suggest that self- and study partner-report measures may not be interchangeable, and that the level of awareness needs to be considered, even in cognitively healthy individuals.