Mariëlle W A van Rijsbergen1, Ruth E Mark2, Paul L M de Kort3, Margriet M Sitskoorn1. 1. Department of Cognitive Neuropsychology, CoRPS-Centre of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Cognitive Neuropsychology, CoRPS-Centre of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.e.mark@tilburguniversity.edu. 3. Department of Neurology, St. Elisabeth Hospital Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) are common after stroke, but detailed information about how SCCs differ between patients with stroke versus stroke-free individuals is not available. We evaluated the prevalence and profile of the 2 SCC components (content and worry) in patients 3 months after stroke versus controls using both a generic and a stroke-specific instrument. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, 142 patients were compared to 135 controls (matched at group level on age, sex, and estimate of premorbid intelligence quotient). SCC-content and SCC-worry were assessed using the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Checklist of Cognitive and Emotional Consequences after stroke (CLCE-24). Univariate and multivariate linear (for continuous scores) and logistic (for dichotomous scores) regression analyses were used to explore differences between patients and controls on both instruments. RESULTS: Based on the CLCE, patients reported more SCC-content (standardized β = .21, p.001) and SCC-worry (standardized β = .18, p.02) than controls in multivariate analyses. Profiles indicated that stroke was associated in particular with SCC-content on the domains of memory, attention, executive functioning, expressive language, and with attention-related SCC-worry. In contrast, no group differences were found on SCC-content and SCC-worry assessed by the CFQ. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and profile of SCC-content and SCC-worry differ between patients and controls 3 months after stroke. The instrument used may, however, determine prevalence estimates. Stroke-specific inventories that differentiate between SCC-content and SCC-worry are preferable when attempting to determine SCC after stroke.
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) are common after stroke, but detailed information about how SCCs differ between patients with stroke versus stroke-free individuals is not available. We evaluated the prevalence and profile of the 2 SCC components (content and worry) in patients 3 months after stroke versus controls using both a generic and a stroke-specific instrument. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, 142 patients were compared to 135 controls (matched at group level on age, sex, and estimate of premorbid intelligence quotient). SCC-content and SCC-worry were assessed using the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and the Checklist of Cognitive and Emotional Consequences after stroke (CLCE-24). Univariate and multivariate linear (for continuous scores) and logistic (for dichotomous scores) regression analyses were used to explore differences between patients and controls on both instruments. RESULTS: Based on the CLCE, patients reported more SCC-content (standardized β = .21, p.001) and SCC-worry (standardized β = .18, p.02) than controls in multivariate analyses. Profiles indicated that stroke was associated in particular with SCC-content on the domains of memory, attention, executive functioning, expressive language, and with attention-related SCC-worry. In contrast, no group differences were found on SCC-content and SCC-worry assessed by the CFQ. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and profile of SCC-content and SCC-worry differ between patients and controls 3 months after stroke. The instrument used may, however, determine prevalence estimates. Stroke-specific inventories that differentiate between SCC-content and SCC-worry are preferable when attempting to determine SCC after stroke.
Authors: Renate M van de Ven; Jaap M J Murre; Jessika I V Buitenweg; Dick J Veltman; Justine A Aaronson; Tanja C W Nijboer; Suzanne J C Kruiper-Doesborgh; Coen A M van Bennekom; K Richard Ridderinkhof; Ben Schmand Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pearl J C van Lonkhuizen; Sophie J M Rijnen; Sophie D van der Linden; Geert-Jan M Rutten; Karin Gehring; Margriet M Sitskoorn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Daan P J Verberne; Rudolf W H M Ponds; Mariëlle E A L Kroese; Melloney L M Wijenberg; Dennis G Barten; Raphaël Pasmans; Julie Staals; Caroline M van Heugten Journal: J Neurol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Britta Nijsse; Daan P J Verberne; Johanna M A Visser-Meily; Marcel W M Post; Paul L M de Kort; Caroline M van Heugten Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 2.912