The Relationship Between Apathy and Cognitive Impairment Among Hispanic/Latin Americans: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Systematic Review
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online May, 2024
The Relationship Between Apathy and Cognitive Impairment Among Hispanic/Latin Americans: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Systematic Review
The primary aim was to evaluate apathy assessment measures in relation to cognitive impairment among Hispanic/Latin Americans.
Methods
A systematic review on the relationship between apathy and cognitive impairment among Hispanic/Latin Americans across normal aging and neurocognitive disorders was conducted according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using APA PsycInfo, Embase, and PubMed databases. Inclusion criteria required (1) a sample of English or Spanish-speaking adults ages 18 years and older, (2) with measures of apathy, (3) assessment of cognitive functioning or diagnosis of neurocognitive disorder, (4) with at least 18.5% Hispanic/Latin American represented in the sample.
Results
Only 14 papers met criteria to be included in this review. Of the 12 cross-sectional studies, 9 demonstrated significant associations between increased apathy and cognitive impairment, 1 demonstrated a descriptive difference between apathy and cognitive status (ie, no hypothesis test conducted), while 2 demonstrated null effects. These cross-sectional studies consisted of community and clinic samples of participants across North and South America. Two longitudinal studies conducted in North America demonstrated non-significant associations of apathy with cognitive status.
Conclusions
The Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) apathy subscales were the most used measures for apathy in this review (85.7% of included studies). However, validity evidence from a review of apathy measures has warranted caution against the use of the NPI outside the context of screening for apathy. This potential measurement bias with Hispanic/Latin Americans apathy research limits conclusions drawn from the present review.
BurgonCGoldbergSEvan der WardtVBrewinCHarwoodRH. Apathy measures in older adults and people with dementia: A systematic review of measurement properties using the COSMIN methodology. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2021;50(2):111-123. doi:10.1159/000515678
2.
RobertPLanctôtKLAgüera-OrtizL, et al.Is it time to revise the diagnostic criteria for apathy in brain disorders? The 2018 international consensus group. Eur Psychiatr. 2018;54:71-76. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.07.008
3.
LanctôtKLIsmailZBawaKK, et al.Distinguishing apathy from depression: A review differentiating the behavioral, neuroanatomic, and treatment-related aspects of apathy from depression in neurocognitive disorders. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2023;38(2):e5882. doi:10.1002/gps.5882
4.
TheleritisCSiarkosKPolitisAAKatirtzoglouEPolitisA. A systematic review of non-pharmacological treatments for apathy in dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2018;33(2):e177-e192. doi:10.1002/gps.4783
5.
PimontelMAKanellopoulosDGunningFM. Neuroanatomical abnormalities in older depressed adults with apathy: A systematic review. J Geriatr Psychiatr Neurol. 2020;33(5):289-303. doi:10.1177/0891988719882100
6.
van DalenJWvan WanrooijLLMoll van CharanteEPBrayneCvan GoolWARichardE. Association of apathy with risk of incident dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatr. 2018;75(10):1012-1021. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1877
7.
RaimoSSantangeloGD’IorioATrojanoLGrossiD. Neural correlates of apathy in patients with neurodegenerative disorders: An activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis. Brain Imaging Behav. 2019;13(6):1815-1834. doi:10.1007/s11682-018-9959-0
8.
National Institutes of Health. NIH RCDC inclusion statistics report. 2020. Published online. https://report.nih.gov/RISR/#/Accessed November 30, 2020.
9.
ÆgisdóttirSGersteinLHÇinarbaşDC. Methodological issues in cross-cultural counseling research: Equivalence, bias, and translations. Counsel Psychol. 2008;36(2):188-219. doi:10.1177/0011000007305384
10.
KauferDICummingsJLKetchelP, et al.Validation of the NPI-Q, a brief clinical form of the neuropsychiatric inventory. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2000;12(2):233-239. doi:10.1176/jnp.12.2.233
11.
SayeghPKnightBG. Functional assessment and neuropsychiatric inventory questionnaires: Measurement invariance across Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. Gerontol. 2014;54(3):375-386. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt026
USC Edward R. Roybal institute on aging, LatinosAgainstAlzheimer’s network. Latinos and Alzheimer’s disease: new numbers behind the crisis. 2016. Published online.
15.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
DruckerAMFlemingPChanAW. Research techniques made simple: Assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(11):e109-e114. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.021
18.
HigginsJAltmanDSterneJChurchhillRChandlerJCumpstonM, eds. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studiesCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Vol 5.2.0. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
19.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerMPocockSJGøtzschePCVandenbrouckeJPSTROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453-1457. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
20.
NakagawaSFreckletonRP. Missing inaction: The dangers of ignoring missing data. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(11):592-596. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.014
21.
KangH. The prevention and handling of the missing data. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2013;64(5):402-406. doi:10.4097/kjae.2013.64.5.402
22.
MertzenDLagoSVasishthS. The benefits of preregistration for hypothesis-driven bilingualism research. Bilingualism. 2021;24(5):807-812. doi:10.1017/S1366728921000031
23.
NosekBABeckEDCampbellL, et al.Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends Cognit Sci. 2019;23(10):815-818. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009
24.
WillrothECGrahamEKMroczekDK. Challenges and opportunities in preregistration of coordinated data analysis: A tutorial and template. Psychol Aging. 2022;37(1):136-140. doi:10.1037/pag0000611
25.
CummingsJLMegaMGrayKRosenberg-ThompsonSCarusiDAGornbeinJ. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: Comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology. 1994;44(12):2308-2314. doi:10.1212/WNL.44.12.2308
26.
YesavageJABrinkTLRoseTL, et al.Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1982;17(1):37-49. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(82)90033-4
27.
Serrano-DueñasMMartínez-MartínPMerchánTBravoRSerranoM. Properties of the apathy scale (AS) for use on Parkinson’s patients. Adv Park Dis. 2013;02(02):53-57. doi:10.4236/apd.2013.22010
28.
TatschMFBottinoCMCAzevedoD, et al.Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer disease and cognitively impaired, nondemented elderly from a community-based sample in Brazil: Prevalence and relationship with dementia severity. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2006;14(5):438-445. doi:10.1097/01.JGP.0000218218.47279.db
29.
MorrisJC. Clinical dementia rating: A reliable and valid diagnostic and staging measure for dementia of the Alzheimer type. Int Psychogeriatr. 1997;9 Suppl 1(S1):173-176. doi:10.1017/S1041610297004870
30.
OrtizFFittenLJCummingsJLHwangSFonsecaM. Neuropsychiatric and behavioral symptoms in a community sample of Hispanics with Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Alzheimers Dis Dementiasr. 2006;21(4):263-273. doi:10.1177/1533317506289350
31.
TobinJ. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica. 1958;26(1):24-36. doi:10.2307/1907382
32.
SosaALAlbaneseEStephanBCM, et al.Prevalence, distribution, and impact of mild cognitive impairment in Latin America, China, and India: A 10/66 population-based study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(2):e1001170. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001170
33.
RogLAParkLQHarveyDJHuangCJMackinSFariasST. The independent contributions of cognitive impairment and neuropsychiatric symptoms to everyday function in older adults. Clin Neuropsychol. 2014;28(2):215-236. doi:10.1080/13854046.2013.876101
34.
MungasDReedBRCranePKHaanMNGonzálezH. Spanish and English Neuropsychological Assessment Scales (SENAS): Further development and psychometric characteristics. Psychol Assess. 2004;16(4):347-359. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.4.347
35.
WilsonRSCapuanoAWSampaioC, et al.Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Brazilians with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;13(1):e12219. doi:10.1002/dad2.12219
36.
GilMAlliey-RodriguezNLopez-AlvarengaJC, et al.Neuropsychiatric symptoms among Hispanics: Results of the Maracaibo aging study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;82(s1):S251-S261. doi:10.3233/JAD-201144
37.
FolsteinMFFolsteinSEMcHughPR. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-198. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
38.
VuLHMarkidesKSDownerB. Neuropsychiatric symptoms by cognitive status for Mexican-Americans aged 85 and older. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2021;7:23337214211002724. doi:10.1177/23337214211002724
39.
Musa SalechGLilloPvan der HieleKMéndez-OrellanaCIbáñezASlachevskyA. Apathy, executive function, and emotion recognition are the main drivers of functional impairment in behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia. Front Neurol. 2021;12:734251. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.734251
40.
QuirogaPAlbalaCKlaasenG. Validation of a screening test for age associated cognitive impairment, in Chile. Rev Med Chile. 2004;132(4):467-478. doi:10.4067/S0034-98872004000400009
41.
DuboisBSlachevskyALitvanIPillonB. The FAB: A frontal assessment battery at bedside. Neurology. 2000;55(11):1621-1626. doi:10.1212/WNL.55.11.1621
42.
BentonALHamsherKdeSSivanAB. Multilingual Aphasia Examination. Iowa City, IA: AJA associates; 1994.
43.
DrozdickLWRaifordSEWahlstromDWeissLG. The Wechsler adult intelligence scale—fourth edition and the Wechsler memory scale—fourth edition. In: Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. 4th ed.New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2018:486-511.
44.
BertouxMDelavestMde SouzaLC, et al.Social cognition and emotional assessment differentiates frontotemporal dementia from depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2012;83(4):411-416. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2011-301849
45.
LuceroBCeballosPAMuñoz-QuezadaMTReynaldosCSaraciniCBaumertBO. Validity and reliability of an assessment tool for the screening of neurotoxic effects in agricultural workers in Chile. BioMed Res Int. 2019;2019:e7901760. doi:10.1155/2019/7901760
46.
RosasRTenorioMPizarroM, et al.Estandarización de la Escala Wechsler de inteligencia para Adultos-Cuarta Edición en Chile. Psykhe. 2014;23(1):1-18. doi:10.7764/psykhe.23.1.529
47.
Greig CustoMTLangMKBarkerWW, et al.The association of depression and apathy with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers in a cross-cultural sample. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 202228:12022-17. Published onlineJune. doi:10.1080/23279095.2022.2079414
48.
O’BryantSEHallJRCukrowiczKC, et al.The differential impact of depressive symptom clusters on cognition in a rural multi-ethnic cohort: A project FRONTIER study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2011;26(2):199-205. doi:10.1002/gps.2514
49.
HallJRDavisTE. Factor structure of the geriatric depression scale in cognitively impaired older adults. Clin Gerontol. 2009;33(1):39-48. doi:10.1080/07317110903362127
50.
PettMALackeyNRSullivanJJ. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. doi:10.4135/9781412984898
51.
RandolphCTierneyMCMohrEChaseTN. The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS): Preliminary clinical validity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20(3):310-319. doi:10.1076/jcen.20.3.310.823
52.
Rodríguez-ViolanteMGonzález-LatapiPCervantes-ArriagaAMartínez-RamírezDVelázquez-OsunaSCamacho-OrdoñezA. Apathy and associated factors in Mexican patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(5):729-734. doi:10.1007/s10072-013-1591-6
53.
NasreddineZSPhillipsNABédirianV, et al.The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-699. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
54.
AcostaIBorgesGAguirre-HernandezRSosaALPrinceM10/66 Dementia Research Group. Neuropsychiatric symptoms as risk factors of dementia in a Mexican population: A 10/66 dementia research group study. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(3):271-279. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.08.015
55.
PrinceMAcostaDChiuHScazufcaMVargheseM10/66 Dementia Research Group. Dementia diagnosis in developing countries: A cross-cultural validation study. Lancet. 2003;361(9361):909-917. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12772-9
56.
PrinceMJde RodriguezJLNoriegaL, et al.The 10/66 dementia research group’s fully operationalised DSM-IV dementia computerized diagnostic algorithm, compared with the 10/66 dementia algorithm and a clinician diagnosis: A population validation study. BMC Publ Health. 2008;8(1):219. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-219
57.
ThakurBAlvaradoLDodooCSalazarREspayAJDwivediAK. Ethnic differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites in neuropsychiatric symptoms predict conversion to mild cognitive impairment. J Geriatr Psychiatr Neurol. 2021;34:622-631. doi:10.1177/0891988720957087
58.
McKhannGDrachmanDFolsteinMKatzmanRPriceDStadlanEM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of department of health and human services task force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1984;34(7):939-944. doi:10.1212/wnl.34.7.939
59.
O’BryantSEWaringSCCullumCM, et al.Staging dementia using clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes scores: A Texas Alzheimer’s research consortium study. Arch Neurol. 2008;65(8):1091-1095. doi:10.1001/archneur.65.8.1091
60.
PetersenRC. Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. J Intern Med. 2004;256(3):183-194. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01388.x
SaariTKoivistoAHintsaTHänninenTHallikainenI. Psychometric properties of the neuropsychiatric inventory: A review. J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;86(4):1485-1499. doi:10.3233/JAD-200739
WagenmakersEJSarafoglouAAartsS, et al.Seven steps toward more transparency in statistical practice. Nat Human Behav. 2021;5(11):1473-1480. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01211-8
65.
MedinaLDTorresSGioiaAOchoa LopezAWangJCirinoPT. Reporting of demographic variables in neuropsychological research: An update of O’Bryant et al.’s trends in the current literature. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2021;27(5):497-507. doi:10.1017/S1355617720001083
66.
EllisBB. Differential item functioning: Implications for test translations. J Appl Psychol. 1989;74(6):912-921. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.912
67.
MartinkováPDrabinováALiawYLSandersEAMcFarlandJLPriceRM. Checking equity: Why differential item functioning analysis should be a routine part of developing conceptual assessments. CBE-Life Sci Educ2017;16(2):1-13. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-10-0307
68.
Martínez-CaoCGarcía-ÁlvarezLBobes-BascaránT, et al.Validation of a European Spanish adaptation of the Apathy Evaluation Scale-self-rated version (AES-S) in patients with schizophrenia. Rev Psiquiatía Salud Ment. 2022;15(1):22-28. doi:10.1016/j.rpsmen.2020.04.007
69.
García-RamosRVillanueva IzaCCatalánMJReig-FerrerAMatías-GuíuJ. Validation of a Spanish version of the Lille apathy rating scale for Parkinson’s disease. Sci World J. 2014;2014:849834-849837. doi:10.1155/2014/849834
70.
van SmedenM. A very short list of common pitfalls in research design, data analysis, and reporting. PRiMER. 2022;6(22):26. doi:10.22454/PRiMER.2022.511416
71.
CloutierSChertkowHKergoatMJGauthierSBellevilleS. Patterns of cognitive decline prior to dementia in persons with mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;47(4):901-913. doi:10.3233/JAD-142910
72.
HastieTJ. Generalized additive models. Statistical Models in S. Milton Park: Routledge; 1992.
73.
BennetteCVickersA. Against quantiles: Categorization of continuous variables in epidemiologic research, and its discontents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):21. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-21
