BACKGROUND: Differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from dementia is important, as treatment options differ. There are few short (<5 min) but accurate screening tools that discriminate between MCI, normal cognition (NC) and dementia, in the Dutch language. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is sensitive and specific in differentiating MCI from NC and mild dementia. Given this, we adapted the Qmci for use in Dutch-language countries and validated the Dutch version, the Qmci-D, against the Dutch translation of the Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE-D).METHOD: The Qmci was translated into Dutch with a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. In all, 90 participants were recruited from a hospital geriatric clinic (25 with dementia, 30 with MCI, 35 with NC). The Qmci-D and SMMSE-D were administered sequentially but randomly by the same trained rater, blind to the diagnosis.RESULTS: The Qmci-D was more sensitive than the SMMSE-D in discriminating MCI from dementia, with a significant difference in the area under the curve (AUC), 0.73 compared to 0.60 (p = 0.024), respectively, and in discriminating dementia from NC, with an AUC of 0.95 compared to 0.89 (p = 0.006). Both screening instruments discriminated MCI from NC with an AUC of 0.86 (Qmci-D) and 0.84 (SMMSE-D).CONCLUSION: The Qmci-D shows similar,(good) accuracy as the SMMSE-D in separating NC from MCI; greater,(albeit fair), accuracy differentiating MCI from dementia, and significantly greater accuracy in separating dementia from NC. Given its brevity and ease of administration, the Qmci-D seems a useful cognitive screen in a Dutch population. Further study with a suitably powered sample against more sensitive screens is now required.
Previous research shows that automatic tendency to approach alcohol plays a causal role in problematic alcohol use and can be retrained by Approach Bias Modification (ApBM). ApBM has been shown to be effective for patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (AUD) in inpatient treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of adding an online ApBM to treatment as usual (TAU) in an outpatient setting compared to receiving TAU with an online placebo training. 139 AUD patients receiving face-to-face or online treatment as usual (TAU) participated in the study. The patients were randomized to an active or placebo version of 8 sessions of online ApBM over a 5-week period. The weekly consumed standard units of alcohol (primary outcome) was measured at pre-and post-training, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Approach tendency was measured pre-and-post ApBM training. No additional effect of ApBM was found on alcohol intake, nor other outcomes such as craving, depression, anxiety, or stress. A significant reduction of the alcohol approach bias was found. This research showed that approach bias retraining in AUD patients in an outpatient treatment setting reduces the tendency to approach alcohol, but this training effect does not translate into a significant difference in alcohol reduction between groups. Explanations for the lack of effects of ApBM on alcohol consumption are treatment goal and severity of AUD. Future ApBM research should target outpatients with an abstinence goal and offer alternative, more user-friendly modes of delivering ApBM training.
MULTIFILE
Receiving the first “Rijbewijs” is always an exciting moment for any teenager, but, this also comes with considerable risks. In the Netherlands, the fatality rate of young novice drivers is five times higher than that of drivers between the ages of 30 and 59 years. These risks are mainly because of age-related factors and lack of experience which manifests in inadequate higher-order skills required for hazard perception and successful interventions to react to risks on the road. Although risk assessment and driving attitude is included in the drivers’ training and examination process, the accident statistics show that it only has limited influence on the development factors such as attitudes, motivations, lifestyles, self-assessment and risk acceptance that play a significant role in post-licensing driving. This negatively impacts traffic safety. “How could novice drivers receive critical feedback on their driving behaviour and traffic safety? ” is, therefore, an important question. Due to major advancements in domains such as ICT, sensors, big data, and Artificial Intelligence (AI), in-vehicle data is being extensively used for monitoring driver behaviour, driving style identification and driver modelling. However, use of such techniques in pre-license driver training and assessment has not been extensively explored. EIDETIC aims at developing a novel approach by fusing multiple data sources such as in-vehicle sensors/data (to trace the vehicle trajectory), eye-tracking glasses (to monitor viewing behaviour) and cameras (to monitor the surroundings) for providing quantifiable and understandable feedback to novice drivers. Furthermore, this new knowledge could also support driving instructors and examiners in ensuring safe drivers. This project will also generate necessary knowledge that would serve as a foundation for facilitating the transition to the training and assessment for drivers of automated vehicles.
