Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review

Jekel, Katrin; Damian, Marinella; Wattmo, Carina; Hausner, Lucrezia; Bullock, Roger; Connelly, Peter J; Dubois, Bruno; Eriksdotter, Maria; Ewers, Michael; Graessel, Elmar; Kramberger, Milica G; Law, Emma; Mecocci, Patrizia; Molinuevo, José L; Nygård, Louise; Olde-Rikkert, Marcel GM; Orgogozo, Jean-Marc; Pasquier, Florence; Peres, Karine; Salmon, Eric; Sikkes, Sietske AM; Sobow, Tomasz; Spiegel, René; Tsolaki, Magda; Winblad, Bengt; Frölich, Lutz

doi:10.1186/s13195-015-0099-0

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

Table 3 Studies investigating specific instrumental activities of daily living domains ^a

From: Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review

Author	Year	MCI criteria	Number of subjects	Mean age, yr (SD)	Mean MMSE score (SD)	IADL measures	Results and effect sizes (Cohen’s d )
Financial capacity: performance-based instruments
Griffith et al. [26]	2003	Petersen	21 MCI	MCI 68.1 (8.8)	MCI 28.4 (1.2)	FCI	NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.14, MCI versus AD d = 1.21
		CDR 0.5	21 NC	NC 66.7 (7.2)	NC 29.3 (1.0)
		CDR 0.5	22 AD	AD 71.5 (9.2), ns	AD 24.1 (2.6)
Sherod et al. [30]	2009	Petersen	113 MCI	MCI 70.3 (7.4)	MCI 28.1 (1.9)	FCI	NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.03, MCI versus AD: d = 0.87
		1.5 SD below	85 NC	NC 67.2 (8.2)	NC 29.4 (0.9)
			43 AD	AD 73.8 (8.5)	AD 24.6 (2.9)
			43 AD	all significant	AD 24.6 (2.9)
Triebel et al. [32]	2009	Petersen	87 MCI	ADcon 74.4 (6.0)	ADcon 27.0 (1.9)	FCI	NC > MCI; ADnon versus NC: d = 0.83, ADcon versus NC: d = 1.83
		1.5 SD below	(25 ADcon, 62 ADnon)	ADnon 68.5 (7.5)	ADnon 28.6 (1.4)
		1.5 SD below	76 NC	NC 66.7 (8.5)	NC 29.4 (1.0)
Management of everyday technology: performance-based instruments
Malinowsky et al. [53]	2010	Petersen	33 MCI	MCI 70.5 (8.4)	MCI 27.5 (1.9)	META	NC > MCI > AD, MCI versus NC: d = 0.66, MCI versus AD: d = 1.23
			45 NC	NC 73.2 (9.7)	NC 29.3 (1.1)
			38 AD	AD 75.3 (9.1)	AD 23.5 (3.3)
Malinowsky et al. [38]	2012	Petersen/Winblad	33 MCI	MCI 70.8 (8.6)	MCI 27.5 (1.9)	META	NC > AD, MCI = NC
			42 NC	NC 72.6 (9.7)	NC 29.4 (1.0)
			35 AD	AD 75.5 (9.2)	AD 23.5 (3.4)
			35 AD	ns	AD 23.5 (3.4)
Management of everyday technology: informant-report rating instruments
Munoz-Neira et al. [54]	2012	Winblad	21 MCI	MCI 71.3 (9.1)	MCI 26.1 (2.5)	T-ADLQ	Total score: NC > MCI > AD, MCI versus NC: d = 0.62, MCI versus AD: d = 1.47 Subscales: NC > MCI on 2 subscales: employment and recreation: d = 0.54, travel: d = 0.55
			44 NC	NC 74.1 (7.3)	NC 27.8 (2.3)
			63 AD	AD 73.9 (8.7)	AD 17.9 (5.8)
Management of everyday technology: self-report rating instruments
Nygård et al. [55]	2011	Petersen/Winblad	37 MCI	MCI 67.0 (7.47)	MCI 27.5 (2.1)	ETUQ (support of proxy possible for patients with AD and MCI)	Perceived relevance of ET: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.51, MCI versus AD: d = 1.26
			44 NC	NC 69.0 (9.58)	NC 29.1 (1.1)
			37 AD	AD 72.0 (8.92)	AD 25.4 (2.8)
			37 AD	ns	ns		Perceived difficulty of ET: NC < MCI < AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.82, MCI versus AD: d = 1.26
Rosenberg et al. [56]	2009	Petersen	30 MCI	MCI 74.0 (6.9)	MCI 27.0 (2.4)	ETUQ (support of proxy possible for patients with AD and MCI)	Perceived relevance of ET: NC > MCI = AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.66
			93 NC	NC 74.0 (7.6)	NC 28.0 (1.7)		Perceived difficulty of ET: NC < MCI < AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.59, MCI versus AD: d = 1.00
			34 AD	AD 73.0 (8.4)	AD 24.0 (3.3)
			34 AD	ns	AD 24.0 (3.3)
Driving capacity: performance-based instruments
Wadley et al. [51]	2009	Petersen	46 MCI	MCI 71.3 (7.8)	Not reported	UAB-DA	MCI < NC, d = 0.46
			59 NC	NC 67.1 (6.7)
			59 NC	significant
Driving capacity: self-report rating instruments
O’Connor et al. [59]	2010	Petersen/Winblad	304 MCI	MCI 76.8 (6.5)	Not reported	DHQ	(aMCI = naMCI = mdMCI) < NC (driving frequency, driving difficulty, driving space) differed at baseline and faster rates of decline Driving frequency: aMCI versus NC: d = 0.31, naMCI versus NC: d = 0.24, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.14 Driving difficulty: aMCI versus NC: d = 0.35, naMCI versus NC: d = 0.36, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.45 Driving space: aMCI versus NC: d = 0.42, naMCI versus NC: d = 0.51, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.43
		1.5 SD below	(82 aMCI	NC 72.6 (5.3)
			140 naMCI	significant
			82 mdMCI)
			2,051 NC
Shopping capacity: performance-based instruments
Werner et al. [52]	2009	Petersen	30 MCI	MCI 69.3 (7.4)	MCI 27.5 (1.3)	VAPS	MCI < NC; significant subscales: distance d = 0.29, trajectory duration: d = 1.16, duration of pauses: d = 0.89
			30 NC	NC 69.6 (7.3)	NC 29.4 (0.7)
			30 NC	ns	significant

^aAD, Alzheimer’s disease; ADcon, Converters to Alzheimer’s disease; ADnon, Nonconverters to Alzheimer’s disease; aMCI, Amnestic mild cognitive impairment, both single and multiple domains; CDR, Clinical dementia rating; DHQ, Driving Habits Questionnaire; ETUQ, Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire; FCI, Financial Capacity Instrument; MCI, Mild cognitive impairment; mdMCI, Multiple-domain mild cognitive impairment; NC, Normal control; ns, Nonsignificant; UAB-DA, University of Alabama at Birmingham Driving Assessment; VAPS, Virtual Action Planning Supermarket.

Back to article page

ISSN: 1758-9193

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com