Temporal patterns of disruptive vocalization in elderly nursing home residents.
Temporal patterns of disruptive vocalization in elderly nursing home residents.
复制标题
老年疗养院居民破坏性发声的时间模式。
DOI：
10.1002/gps.349
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Hsu,C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burgio,LD;Scilley,K;Hardin,JM;Hsu,C
本研究使用计算机辅助的真实的时间数据收集程序，研究痴呆养老院居民的破坏性发声（DV）的时间模式。居民（N= 68）从上午8点开始观察。到晚上8并计算每小时区组内DV的总平均持续时间。DV的时间分布的68名居民组所表现出的分析表明一个显着的立方趋势。探索性聚类分析揭示了三种不同的时间模式DV，虽然两种模式通常支持日落。聚类1显示出相对恒定的模式，低率DV。集群2和3显示出周期性趋势。对于第2组，在中午和晚上观察到DV峰。聚类3显示DV在清晨和下午晚些时候达到峰值。MANOVA被用来检查年龄，认知状态和ADL状态的集群之间的任何差异。单变量分析表明，认知状态是唯一的因素，不同的集群，与集群1（恒定低速率DV）的成员表现出较高的认知状态得分比集群2和3。逐步判别函数分析也表明认知状态是聚类成员资格的唯一统计学显著预测因素。作者指出，关于激越的科学文献充满了相互矛盾的发现，并断言不一致可能是由于不同研究在问题定义、测量方法和样本量方面存在差异。讨论了与这些方法学问题和研究结果的临床意义相关的结果。版权所有© 2001约翰威利父子有限公司。
This study used computer‐assisted real‐time data collection procedures to study temporal patterns of disruptive vocalization (DV) in demented nursing home residents. Residents (N= 68) were observed from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and total mean duration of DV within hourly blocks was calculated. Analysis of the temporal distribution of DV exhibited by the group of 68 residents indicated a significant cubic trend. Exploratory cluster analysis uncovered three distinct temporal patterns of DV; although two of the patterns are generally supportive of sundowning. Cluster 1 showed a relatively constant pattern of low rate DV. Clusters 2 and 3 showed cyclic trends. Peaks in DV were observed during noontime and in the evening for Cluster 2. Cluster 3 showed peaks in DV in the early morning hours and late afternoon. MANOVA was employed to examine any differences among clusters in age, cognitive status, and ADL status. Univariate analyses indicated that cognitive status was the only factor that differed significantly among clusters, with members of Cluster 1 (constant low rate DV) manifesting higher cognitive status scores than Clusters 2 and 3. A step‐wise discriminant function analysis also showed cognitive status to be the only statistically significant predictor of cluster membership. The authors' note that the scientific literature on agitation is fraught with contradictory findings and assert that inconsistencies may be due to differences across studies in problem definition, method of measurement, and sample size. The results are discussed in relation to these methodological issues and clinical implications of the findings. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.