| Literature DB >> 33209770 |
Aparajita Dasgupta1, Sauryadripta Ghose1, Bobby Paul1, Lina Bandyopadhyay1, Pritam Ghosh1, Akanksha Yadav1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: With the aging of Indian society, maintaining salubrious cognitive health in late life is a public health priority. Early detection and possible prevention of cognitive impairment (CI), thus, will help in increasing the quality of life of elderly people and decreasing the social, psychological, and economic burden of their families and caregivers. AIMS: The study aimed to assess proportion of CI and its predictors. SETTINGS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Cognitive impairment; Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) tool; elderly
Year: 2020 PMID: 33209770 PMCID: PMC7652164 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_604_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Family Med Prim Care ISSN: 2249-4863
Univariate logistic regression showing association of cognitive impairment with various sociodemographic and behavioral factors (n=135)
| Characteristic | Total (%) | Cognitive Impairment | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absent (%) | Present (%) | |||
| *Age↑ | 135(100) | **65(60-69.25) | **68(62.5-72) | 1.1(1.02-1.14) |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 65(48.1) | 34(52.3) | 31(47.7) | 1(Reference) |
| Female | 70(51.9) | 36(51.4) | 34(48.6) | 1.04(0.5-2) |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 93(68.9) | 51(54.8) | 42(45.2) | 1(Reference) |
| Widow/ Widower | 42(31.1) | 19(45.2) | 23(54.8) | 1.5(0.7-3.1) |
| *Years of schooling↓ | 135(100) | **4(0-7.25) | **2(0-4) | 1.1(1.02-1.2) |
| Socioeconomic class | ||||
| I | 3(2.2) | 2(66.7) | 1(33.3) | 1(Reference) |
| II | 17(12.6) | 12(70.6) | 5(29.4) | 0.8(0.06-11.4) |
| III | 71(52.6) | 36(50.7) | 35(49.3) | 1.9(0.2-22.4) |
| IV | 44(32.6) | 20(45.5) | 24(54.5) | 2.4(0.2-28.4) |
| Financial dependency | ||||
| Dependent | 84(62.2) | 40(47.6) | 44(52.4) | 1.6(0.8-3.2) |
| Independent | 51(37.8) | 30(58.8) | 21(41.2) | 1(Reference) |
| Working status | ||||
| Working | 45(33.3) | 28(62.2) | 17(37.8) | 1(Reference) |
| Staying at home | 90(66.7) | 42(46.7) | 48(53.3) | 1.88(0.9-3.9) |
| Smoking | ||||
| Present | 47(34.8) | 27(57.4) | 20(42.6) | 1(Reference) |
| Absent | 88(65.2) | 43(48.9) | 45(51.1) | 1.4(0.7-2.9) |
| Alcohol | ||||
| Present | 15(11.1) | 10(66.7) | 5(33.3) | 1(Reference) |
| Absent | 120(88.9) | 60(50) | 60(50) | 2(0.6-6.2) |
| Smokeless tobacco | ||||
| Present | 25(18.5) | 14(56) | 11(44) | 1(Reference) |
| Absent | 110(81.5) | 56(50.9) | 54(49.1) | 1.2(0.5-3) |
*Continuous Variable; ** Median (IQR) of the continuous variable among that group mentioned
Univariate logistic regression showing association of cognitive impairment with various morbidity profiles (n=135)
| Characteristics | Total (%) | Cognitive Impairment | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absent (%) | Present (%) | |||
| Chronic Illness | ||||
| Hypertension | ||||
| Present | 85(63) | 41(48.2) | 44(51.8) | 1.5(0.7-3) |
| Absent | 50(37) | 29(58) | 21(42) | 1(Reference) |
| Diabetes Mellitus | ||||
| Present | 26(19.3) | 13(50) | 13(50) | 1.1(0.4-2.6) |
| Absent | 109(80.7) | 57(52.3) | 52(47.7) | 1(Reference) |
| Depression | ||||
| Present | 62(45.9) | 23(37.1) | 39(62.9) | 3.1(1.5-6.2) |
| Absent | 73(54.1) | 47(64.4) | 26(35.6) | 1(Reference) |
| Nutritional Status | ||||
| Normal | 62(45.9) | 41(66.1) | 21(33.9) | 1(Reference) |
| At risk | 63(46.7) | 26(41.3) | 37(58.7) | 2.8(1.3-5.7) |
| Malnourished | 10(7.4) | 3(30) | 7(70) | 4.6(1.1-19.4) |
Multivariable logistic regression showing the association of cognitive impairment with various covariates (n=135)
| Characteristic | AOR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Increasing Age | 1.1 (1.01-1.13) | 0.04 |
| Decreasing Years of schooling | 1.1(1.01-1.2) | 0.04 |
| Depression | ||
| Present | 2.7 (1.3-5.8) | 0.01 |
| Absent | 1 (Reference) | |
| MNA | ||
| Normal | 1 (Reference) | |
| At Risk | 1.7 (0.8-3.9) | 0.19 |
| Malnourished | 4.5 (1.01-20.3) | 0.04 |
Cox and Snell R Square value=0.179. Nagelkerke R square value=0.239. Hosmer and Lemeshow test, P-value=0.052 (Not significant)
Figure 1Scatter diagram with fit line showing correlation between MoCA score and GDS score
Figure 2Scatter diagram with fit line showing correlation between MoCA score and MNA score