Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a fundamental pillar in the therapeutic pathway of patients with cardiovascular disease, contributing significantly to improving quality of life and reducing the risk of cardiovascular event recurrence. Over the past decades, this approach has progressively evolved, integrating multidisciplinary strategies based on scientific evidence. This study aimed to conduct a detailed analysis of the anthropometric, clinical, and functional characteristics of patients enrolled in the CR Unit of the San Giovanni di Dio and Ruggi D’Aragona University Hospital in Salerno, with particular attention to therapeutic changes, drug titration, and cognitive assessment. Methods: Specifically, the anthropometric, clinical, laboratory, and instrumental data of 95 patients (age 66.56 ± 0.99 years, 75% male) who underwent the CR program between 2023 and 2025 were analyzed. Results: Patients with various diagnoses were enrolled in the CR program: 17% heart failure, 18% cardiac surgery, 20% acute coronary syndrome, 16% chronic coronary syndrome, 29% dyspnea. The patients had numerous comorbidities and risk factors: 73% arterial hypertension, 77% dyslipidemia, 35% diabetes mellitus, 33% smoking, 13% thyroid dysfunction, 47% CAD, 18% CKD, 16% COPD. At baseline, Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) showed a moderately reduced functional capacity (VO2 peak pre-CR: 14.29 ± 0.53 mL/min/kg; VO2% predicted pre-CR: 62.19 ± 2.43%), and a significant improvement was recorded in meters at 6 min walk test (6MWT) post-CR (pre-CR: 306.02 ± 9.93 m vs. post-CR: 378.88 ± 13.37 m; p < 0.05). Notably, 22% of patients had a Qmci score < 49.4 points, indicating an MCI. Finally, the cardiovascular therapy was titrated and adapted; specifically, we recorded a significant increase in the use of SGLT2i therapy (pre-RC 22.00% vs. post-RC 34.00%; p < 0.05). Conclusions: In conclusion, CR proved to be safe and effective in enrolled patients; further studies will be needed to investigate the therapeutic modifications implemented during CR programs in more detail.

BackgroundAccurate, short, cognitive screening instruments are important for identifying mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia including Alzheimer's disease. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, given its brevity, may be useful in this setting but it has not been validated in Spanish.ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Spanish version (Qmci-S) to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).MethodsPatients aged ≥55 years were recruited from six Primary Care Teams in Barcelona, Spain, between 2018-2019. Dementia, MCI, and normal cognition (NC) were classified following neuropsychological testing, independent of the Qmci-S and MoCA scores. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), adjusted for age and education.ResultsIn total, 337 patients were included, mean 77.9 years, standard deviation (SD) ± 6.9. Most were female (57.3%). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the Qmci-S was excellent (0.98). The Qmci-S had good to excellent diagnostic accuracy for separating NC from MCI and dementia (AUC 0.91) and was statistically greater than the MoCA (AUC 0.86), p = 0.029. Accuracy was similar for differentiating NC from MCI and MCI from dementia. The Qmci-S had a shorter administer time, mean 8.6 (±3.2) versus 12.75 (SD ±5.5) minutes, respectively, p < 0.001.ConclusionsThe newly developed Qmci-S screen showed excellent criterion, construct and concurrent validity versus the widely used MoCA and had statistically similar, good to excellent, diagnostic accuracy for cognitive impairment. Its significantly shorter administration time suggests it may be the better screen in a Spanish speaking population in primary care, though further research is required.

Few studies have investigated the possibility of offering outreach from hospital-based memory clinic services to primary care. Such models could potentially improve access to specialised mental healthcare. We report on the reliability and validity of a pilot cognitive screening pathway in general practice (GP) in Ireland. Consecutive patients with memory complaints attending two primary care clinics were screened and diagnosed clinically by a physician-run memory clinic in GP. Follow-up in secondary care confirmed the diagnosis. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) and diagnostic validity of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen was compared to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG). In all, 63 patients, 31 with subjective memory complaints (SMC), 16 with mild cognitive impairment and 16 with dementia were screened. Their median age was 73 and 67% were female. The IRR of the Qmci screen between GP and clinic was excellent (r = 0.89). The Qmci was more accurate than the GPCOG in identifying cognitive impairment; the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.95 versus 0.80 (p = 0.008). The Qmci and MoCA had similar accuracy, with an AUC of 0.95 versus 0.91 (p = 0.117), respectively, but was significantly shorter (p < 0.001), suggesting it may be a useful instrument in this setting. Based on these results, a definitive study is now planned to examine the benefits and challenges of utilizing these instruments as part of establishing an outreach memory clinic service in primary care.

Background: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is recommended by the Movement Disorder Society for cognitive testing in movement disorders including Parkinson’s disease (PD) and lewy body dementia. Few studies have compared cognitive screening instruments in these diseases, which overlap clinically. Objective: To compare the MoCA and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q mci) screen in this population. Methods: Patients attending memory and movement disorder clinics associated with a university hospital had the MoCA and Q mci screen performed and diagnostic accuracy compared with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Duration and severity of movement disorders was assessed using the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS). Results: In total, 133 assessments were available, median age 74±5. Median education was 11±4 years and 65% were male. Median total UPDRS score was 37±26. Median Q mci screen was 51±27, median MoCA was 19±10. There were statistically significant differences in test scores between those with subjective symptoms but normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia ( p < 0.001). The Q mci screen had significantly greater accuracy differentiating normal cognition from MCI versus the MoCA (AUC 0.90 versus 0.72, p = 0.01). Both instruments had similar accuracy in identifying cognitive impairment and separating MCI from dementia. The median administration time for the Q mci screen and MoCA were 5.19 and 9.24 minutes ( p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: Both the MoCA and Q mci screen have good to excellent accuracy in a population with movement disorders experiencing cognitive symptoms. The Q mci screen was significantly more accurate for those with early symptoms and had a shorter administration time.

Understanding risk factors for frailty, functional decline and incidence of adverse healthcare outcomes amongst community-dwelling older adults is important to plan population-level health and social care services. We examined variables associated with one-year risk of institutionalisation, hospitalisation and death among patients assessed in their own home by a community-based Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) in Western Australia. Frailty and risk were measured using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC), respectively. Predictive accuracy was measured from the area under the curve (AUC). Data from 417 patients, median 82 ± 10 years, were included. At 12-month follow-up, 22.5% (n = 94) were institutionalised, 44.6% (n = 186) were hospitalised at least once and 9.8% (n = 41) had died. Frailty was common, median CFS score 6/9 ± 1, and significantly associated with institutionalisation (p = 0.001), hospitalisation (p = 0.007) and death (p < 0.001). Impaired activities of daily living (ADL) measured on the RISC had moderate correlation with admission to long-term care (r = 0.51) and significantly predicted institutionalisation (p < 0.001) and death (p = 0.01). The RISC had the highest accuracy for institutionalisation (AUC 0.76). The CFS and RISC had fair to good accuracy for mortality (AUC of 0.69 and 0.74, respectively), but neither accurately predicted hospitalisation. Home assessment of community-dwelling older patients by an ACAT in Western Australia revealed high levels of frailty, ADL impairment and incident adverse outcomes, suggesting that anticipatory care planning is imperative for these patients.

Background: Short cognitive screening instruments (CSI) are required to identify cognitive impairment in busy outpatient clinics. While the Six Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT) is commonly used, its accuracy in those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and against more widely-used CSIs is less well established. Objective: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of the 6CIT against the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q mci) screen across the cognitive spectrum in a memory clinic population. Methods: In total, 142 paired assessments were available (21 with SCD, 32 MCI, and 89 with dementia). Consecutive patients underwent a comprehensive assessment and were screened using the 6CIT, Q mci, and MoCA. Accuracy was determined from the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Results: The median age of patients was 76 (±11) years; 68% were female. The median 6CIT score was 10/28 (±14). The 6CIT was strongly, negatively, and statistically significantly correlated with the Q mci ( r = –0.84) and MoCA ( r = –0.86). The 6CIT had good accuracy for separating cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia) from SCD, (AUC:0.88; 0.82–0.94), similar to the MoCA (AUC:0.92; 0.87–0.97, p = 0.308), but statistically lower than the Q mci (AUC:0.96; 0.94–0.99, p = 0.01). The 6CIT was faster to administer, median time 2.05 minutes versus 4.38 and 9.5 for the Q mci and MoCA, respectively. Conclusion: While the Q mci was more accurate than the 6CIT, the shorter administration time of the 6CIT, suggests it may be useful when assessing or monitoring cognitive impairment in busy memory clinics, though larger samples are required to evaluate.

Background: : Frailty is associated with a prodromal stage called pre-frailty, a potentially reversible and highly prevalent intermediate state before frailty becomes established. Despite being widely-used in the literature and increasingly in clinical practice, it is poorly understood Objective: : To establish consensus on the construct and approaches to diagnose and manage pre-frailty. Methods: : We conducted a modified (electronic, two-round) Delphi consensus study. The questionnaire included statements concerning the concept, aspects and causes, types, mechanism, assessment, consequences, prevention and management of pre-frailty. Qualitative and quantitative analysis methods were employed. An agreement level of 70% was applied. Results: : Twenty-three experts with different backgrounds from 12 countries participated. In total, 70 statements were circulated in Round 1. Of these, 52.8% were accepted. Following comments, 51 statements were recirculated in Round 2 and 92.1% were accepted. It was agreed that physical and non-physical factors including psychological and social capacity are involved in the development of pre-frailty, potentially adversely affecting health and health-related quality of life. Experts considered pre-frailty to be an age-associated multi factorial, multi-dimensional, and non-linear process that does not inevitably lead to frailty. It can be reversed or attenuated by targeted interventions. Brief, feasible, and validated tools and multidimensional assessment are recommended to identify pre-frailty. Conclusions: : Consensus suggests that pre-frailty lies along the frailty continuum. It is a multidimensional risk state associated with one or more of physical impairment, cognitive decline, nutritional deficiencies and socioeconomic disadvantages, predisposing to the development of frailty. More research is needed to agree an operational definition and optimal management strategies.

BACKGROUND:Self or home-administered cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) can reduce barriers to the early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.OBJECTIVE:To examine the acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a caregiver-administered CSI, the Quick Memory Check (QMC).METHODS:Components of the Quick Mild Cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen (orientation, verbal fluency, and logical memory) were re-weighted to create the QMC, scored out of 100 points. Participants, attending a university hospital memory clinic, were provided administration instructions beforehand. Area under the curve (AUC) scores, adjusted for age and education, were compared with the Qmci screen and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Caregivers or family scored the QMC.RESULTS:In all, 366 participants were recruited; 53 with subjective memory complaints (SMC), 74 with MCI, 193 with dementia, and 46 normal controls. Median QMC scores for controls were 70±13 versus 60±20 for SMC, 52±18 for MCI, and 31±21 for dementia. The QMC had excellent accuracy (AUC 0.97) for cognitive impairment (MCI/dementia from controls), similar to the Qmci screen (AUC 0.98, p = 0.17) and MoCA (AUC 0.95, p = 0.13). At a cut-off of <52/100, the QMC had 83% sensitivity and 100% specificity for cognitive impairment. The QMC had lower accuracy differentiating MCI from SMC (AUC 0.73), albeit similar to the MoCA (AUC 0.70).CONCLUSION:The QMC, administered by caregivers in advance of clinic, compared favorably to established CSIs scored by trained raters. This caregiver, home-administered CSI is acceptable and can identify cognitive impairment, potentially improving efficiency by reducing testing time and patient stress in busy clinical settings.

Background: Prompt and efficient identification and stratification of patients who are frail is important, as this cohort are at high risk of adverse healthcare outcomes. Numerous frailty screening tools have been developed to support their identification across different settings, yet relatively few have emerged for use in emergency departments (EDs). This protocol provides details for a systematic review aiming to synthesize the accumulated evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy and clinimetric properties of frailty screening instruments to identify frail older adults in EDs. Methods: Six electronic databases will be searched from January 2000 to March 2021. Eligible studies will include adults aged ≥60 years screened in EDs with any available screening instrument to identify frailty (even if not originally designed for this purpose). Studies, including case-control, longitudinal, and cohort studies, will be included, where instruments are compared to a reference standard to explore diagnostic accuracy. Predictive accuracy for a selection of outcomes, including mortality, institutionalization, and readmission, will be assessed. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity will be examined, and a random effects meta-analysis performed if appropriate. Conclusion: Understanding whether frailty screening on presentation to EDs is accurate in identifying frailty, and predicting these outcomes is important for decision-making and targeting appropriate management.

Background: Screening for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is necessary because stroke increases the incidence of and accelerates premorbid cognitive decline. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is a short, reliable and accurate cognitive screening instrument but is not yet validated in PSCI. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of a Chinese version of the Qmci screen (Qmci-CN) compared with the widely-used Chinese versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-CN) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-CN).Methods: We recruited 34 patients who had recovered from a stroke in rehabilitation unit clinics in 2 university hospitals in China: 11 with post-stroke dementia (PSD), 15 with post-stroke cognitive impairment no dementia (PSCIND), and 8 with normal cognition (NC). Classification was made based on clinician assessment supported by a neuropsychological battery, independent of the screening test scores. The Qmci-CN, MoCA-CN, and MMSE-CN screens were administered randomly by a trained rater, blind to the diagnosis.Results: The mean age of the sample was 63 ± 13 years and 61.8% were male. The Qmci-CN had statistically similar diagnostic accuracy in differentiating PSD from NC, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94 compared to 0.99 for the MoCA-CN (p = 0.237) and 0.99 for the MMSE-CN (p = 0.293). The Qmci-CN (AUC 0.91), MoCA-CN (AUC 0.94), and MMSE-CN (AUC 0.79) also had statistically similar accuracy in separating PSD from PSCIND. The MoCA-CN more accurately distinguished between PSCIND and normal cognition than the Qmci-CN (p = 0.015). Compared to the MoCA-CN, the administration times of the Qmci-CN (329s vs. 611s, respectively, p < 0.0001) and MMSE-CN (280 vs. 611s, respectively, p < 0.0001) were significantly shorter.Conclusion: The Qmci-CN is accurate in identifying PSD and separating PSD from PSCIND in patients post-stroke following rehabilitation and is comparable to the widely-used MoCA-CN, albeit with a significantly shorter administration time. The Qmci-CN had relatively poor accuracy in identifying PSCIND from NC and hence may lack accuracy for certain subgroups. However, given the small sample size, the study is under-powered to show superiority of one instrument over another. Further study is needed to confirm these findings in a larger sample size and in other settings (countries and languages).

Brief cognitive screening instruments are used to identify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms that warrant further assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci-Pr) among middle-aged and older Iranian adults. Consecutive patients aged ≥55 years and caregivers attending with them as normal controls (NCs) were recruited from geriatric outpatient clinics and a hospital in Tehran, Iran. All patients completed the Qmci-Pr before completing an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment and staging using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale. NCs underwent the same assessment. In all, 92 participants with a median age of 70 years (±13) were available. Of these, 20 participants were NCs, 24 had subjective memory complaints (SMC), 24 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 24 had Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The Qmci-Pr had good accuracy in differentiating SMC and NC from MCI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.80 (0.69–0.91)) and in identifying cognitive impairment (MCI and mild AD) (AUC: 0.87 (0.80–0.95)) with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 80%, at an optimal cut-off of <53/100. The Qmci-Pr is an accurate short cognitive screening impairment for separating NC and patients with SMC from MCI and identifying cognitive impairment. Further research with larger samples and comparison with other widely used instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is needed. Given its established brevity, the Qmci-Pr is a useful screen for Iranian adults across the spectrum of cognitive decline.

INTRODUCTION:The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity.METHODS:PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model.RESULTS:In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11-13%; n = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22-26%; n = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45-48%; n = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46-52%; n = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14-17%; n = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10-12%; n = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24-35%; n = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16-24%; n = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5-9%; n = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22-26%; n = 44) for FIs.CONCLUSIONS:Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates.PROTOCOL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO-CRD42018105431.

Background: Aging is associated with an increase in adverse health outcomes for older people. Short screening instruments that easily and quickly identify those at highest risk can enable decision-makers to anticipate future needs, allocate scarce resources and act to minimize risk. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is a brief (2–5 min) Likert scale that scores one-year risk of institutionalization, hospitalization and death from low (1/5) to severe (5/5). Objectives: To externally validate the RISC, scored by general practitioners (GP's), in primary care in Northern Portugal. Methods: The RISC was translated and culturally adapted to Portuguese. A cohort of 457 older adults (aged ≥65) under active follow-up with their GP's were screened. Outcomes at one-year were recorded. Accuracy was determined from the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating curve analysis. Results: The mean age of participants was 75.2 years; 57% were female. The proportion identified as being at maximum risk (RISC scores of 3-5/5) of institutionalization, hospitalization and death, were 14.9, 52.4 and 38.4%, respectively. At follow-up 2% (10/431) were institutionalized, 18.6% (84/451) were hospitalized and 3% (14/456) died. Those who were institutionalized (p = 0.021), hospitalized (p = 0.012) or dead (p < 0.001) at one-year were significantly older. Those living alone were more likely to be institutionalized (p = 0.007). The RISC showed fair accuracy in predicting hospitalization (AUC of 0.62 [95% CI: 0.55–0.69]) and good accuracy for Institutionalization (AUC of 0.79 [95% CI: 0.62–0.96]) and death (AUC of 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65–0.88]). Conclusions: The Portuguese version of the RISC accurately predicted institutionalization and death at one-year but like most short screens was less able to predict hospitalization. Given its brevity, the RISC is useful for quickly identifying and stratifying those at increased risk in primary care.

INTRODUCTIONShort cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) are widely used to stratify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is a new, brief (<5mins) CSI designed to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which can be used across the spectrum of cognitive decline. Here we present the translation of the Qmci into Greek (Qmci-Gr) and its validation against the widely-used Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE).METHODSConsecutive patients aged ≥55 years presenting with cognitive complaints were recruited from two outpatient clinics in Greece. All patients completed the Qmci-Gr and SMMSE and underwent an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment to determine a diagnostic classification.RESULTSIn total, 140 patients, median age 75 years, were included; 30 with mild dementia (median SMMSE 23/30), 76 with MCI and 34 with subjective memory complaints (SMC) but normal cognition. The Qmci-Gr had similar accuracy in differentiating SMC from cognitive impairment (MCI & mild dementia) compared with SMMSE, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 versus 0.79, respectively; while accuracy was higher for the Qmci-Gr, this finding was not significantly different, (p = .19). Similarly, the Qmci-Gr had similar accuracy in separating SMC from MCI, AUC of 0.79 versus 0.73 (p = .23).CONCLUSIONSThe Qmci-Gr compared favorably with the SMMSE. Further research with larger samples and comparison with other instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is needed to confirm these findings but given its established brevity, it may be a better choice in busy clinical practice in Greece.

Background: Although caregiver burden is common among carers of people with dementia, little is known about its prevalence and predictors among caregivers of patients attending memory clinics. Objective: To examine carer and patient-specific characteristics associated with caregiver burden across the cognitive spectrum in a memory clinic population. Methods: Consecutive patients referred to a university hospital geriatric memory clinic were included. Caregiver burden was scored using the Caregiver Burden Score (CBS), (modified Zarit), with scores≥15/30 suggesting burden. BPSD were measured with the dysfunctional behaviour rating instrument (DBRI). Cognition was screened using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q mci) screen. Results: In all, 351 patients were included, median age 77 (±11) years; 65.5% were female. The prevalence of caregiver burden was 33.6% overall, increasing from 10.8% in subjective cognitive decline (SCD), to 15% in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 43% in dementia; CBS scores were significantly higher in dementia ( p < 0.001). Caregivers with burden were significantly younger ( p = 0.045) and were more likely to be adult children ( p = 0.007). The CBS weakly correlated with the stage of cognitive impairment ( r = 0.16) but had moderate correlation with MoCA ( r = –0.54) and Q mci scores ( r = –0.60). After adjustment for co-variates, DBRI scores alone independently predicted burden (odds ratio 1.23;1.11–1.35, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Caregiver burden is associated with the stage of cognitive impairment, with higher prevalence proportions in those with dementia compared with MCI and SCD. Only the severity of neuropsychiatric symptoms independently predicted caregiver burden in this population and its presence should prompt assessment for burden.

Abstract Neurocognitive Disorders (NCD) is an increasingly common condition in the community. The General Practitioner (GP) in Primary Care Services (PCS), have a crucial role in early detection of NCD and is usually the first professional to detect the signs of MCI. The objective of this study was to test the feasibility and utility of the cognitive screening instrument QMCI in Primary Care. A community sample of 436 people 65+ living in the community was randomly selected from a larger group of old people with mental health concerns (N=2734), referred by their GPs. The mean age of the sample was 75.2 years (sd 7.2), with 41.3% men and 58.7% women; 60.4% married followed by 28.7% widows. The education level was low with 21% illiterate and 69,8% people with 4 years education. The QMCI mean was 37.1/100 (sd 16.2). The amount of people screening positive for cognitive impairment QMCI (<62/100) was 94.2%. In the distribution of people with cognitive impairment by Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) three recoded categories, of the 286 people 76,1% where classified as having very mild or mild impairment, 19,4% moderate or moderately serious and 4,5% severe or very severe impairment. These results confirm the perception of GPs about their clients having mental health concerns and the ability of QMCI accurately discriminate MCI. The QMCI is very brief (3-5mins) fitting the short time of GPs to assess cognitive status and timely refer clients to nonpharmacological interventions that could postpone NCD symptoms.

Objectives: Brief screening instruments are useful in busy clinical practice to identify those requiring further assessment. This study aims to translate and validate a Portuguese version of the four-item Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-4) to identify caregiver burden in a community-based sample in Northern Portugal. Methods: We collected data from 203 informal caregivers of community-dwellers aged >= 80 years. Internal consistency and factors were measured using Cronbach's alpha. Pearson's correlation was used to examine construct validity against negative and positive aspects of caregiving from the Caregiving Appraisal Scale. Discriminative ability was evaluated from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Optimal cutoffs were calculated using Youden ' s Index. Results: The internal consistency of the Portuguese version of the ZBI-4 was good (alpha = 0.71). Concurrent validity was acceptable, showing strong correlation with the negative (rho = 0.66) and medium correlation with positive (rho = -0.33) aspects of the Caregiving Appraisal Scale. Discriminative accuracy for caregiver burden was also good (AUC = 0.86). Youden's index produced an optimal cutoff of >= 7 points for burden. Conclusions: The Portuguese version of the ZBI-4 screen demonstrates good psychometric properties.