Poster or Presentation Title

Quality of life and presence of symptom clusters during baseline neurocognitive testing.

Access Type

Campus Access Only

Presentation Type

Oral Presentation

Start Date

April 2019

Department

Athletic Training

Abstract

Quality of life and presence of symptom clusters during baseline neurocognitive testing.

Asewicz EA*, Bradney DA*, Bowman TG*, Register-Mihalik JK†, *University of Lynchburg, Lynchburg, VA, †University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Context: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) measures are used to evaluate and monitor physical, mental, and social health. Measures of HRQOL are becoming more popular in collegiate student-athletes as mental health issues are becoming destigmatized and screening and treatment are incorporated into sport performance. Little research has studied factors that may affect HRQOL measures. The presence of symptoms during baseline neurocognitive testing may provide influence reports into a patient’s HRQOL. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between self-reported symptom cluster severity scores during baseline concussion testing and health related quality of life measures. Methods: We recruited 271 intercollegiate athletes participating in lacrosse, basketball, field hockey, and soccer over the past three years (age=19.00±1.15 years, height=175.18±4.29 cm, mass=72.29±12.03 kg). Participants completed a comprehensive baseline concussion battery which included the 22-item symptom checklist from the SCAT 5 and a HRQOL screen including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS-29) inventory and the cognitive and fatigue scales from the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders scale (Neuro-QOL). After completion, we grouped SCAT 5 symptoms into four symptom cluster severity scores (cognitive-sensory, sleep-arousal, vestibular-somatic, and affective) which served as the independent variables. The PROMIS subsection scores (anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, sleep disturbance, social roles, fatigue, cognitive function) and the Neuro-QOL subsets (fatigue SF, Cognitive Function SF) served as the dependent variables. We ran stepwise multiple linear regression for each of the HRQOL subsection scores using the symptom cluster severity scores as the predictor variables. Results: Participants reported cognitive-sensory cluster symptoms most often (68.6%, mean=3.11±3.97, range=0-20) followed by affective (38.2%, mean=1.36±2.77, range=0-21), sleep arousal (32.9%, mean=0.70±1.33, range=0-7), and vestibular-somatic (31.1%, mean=0.76±1.81, range=0-14). Higher cognitive-sensory and affective symptom cluster severity scores were associated with worse cognitive function SF (F2, 262=42.78, P

Conclusions: Findings suggest that quality of life is affected by self-reported symptom cluster severity scores. Identifying the presence of symptom clusters in collegiate athletes may provide insight into potential negative HRQOL outcomes. Healthcare professionals may use symptom scores and HRQOL measures to help identify those in need of referral to mental health professionals.

Word Count: 435

DV

IV

B (Slope)

t

P

Lower CI 95%

Upper CI 95%

Model F

R2

Cognitive Function

CS

-0.51

-5.67

<.001

-0.69

-0.33

42.78

0.23

A

-0.35

-2.68

0.01

-0.61

-0.09

0.25

Fatigue SF

CS

0.52

6.26

<.001

0.35

0.68

70.00

0.30

A

0.55

4.59

<.001

0.32

0.79

0.35

Social Roles

A

-0.15

-3.37

<.001

-0.28

-0.07

19.37

0.10

SA

-0.25

-2.99

0.003

-0.42

-0.09

0.13

Sleep Disturbance

SA

1.05

7.36

<.001

0.77

1.33

50.63

0.26

A

0.20

2.93

<.01

0.07

0.34

0.28

Pain Intensity

CS

0.13

5.94

<.001

0.09

0.17

35.32

0.12

Pain Interference

CS

0.06

3.23

0.001

0.03

0.10

10.66

0.04

Fatigue

A

0.59

8.12

<.001

0.45

0.73

132.11

0.42

CS

0.34

6.78

<.001

0.24

0.44

0.50

Depression

A

0.37

9.98

<.001

0.30

0.44

75.58

0.35

SA

0.16

2.10

0.04

0.01

0.31

0.36

Anxiety

A

0.50

7.80

<.001

0.37

0.63

62.79

0.31

CS

0.09

2.03

0.04

0.00

0.18

0.32

Physical Function

CS

-0.04

-3.45

0.001

-0.07

-0.02

11.90

0.04

BSI Total

A

0.88

9.50

<.001

0.70

1.06

91.41

0.46

CS

0.24

3.50

0.01

0.10

0.37

0.50

SA

0.41

2.20

0.03

0.05

0.78

0.51

Faculty Mentor(s)

Thomas Bowman, Debbie Bradney

Rights Statement

The right to download or print any portion of this material is granted by the copyright owner only for personal or educational use. The author/creator retains all proprietary rights, including copyright ownership. Any editing, other reproduction or other use of this material by any means requires the express written permission of the copyright owner. Except as provided above, or for any other use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.), you may not reproduce, republish, post, transmit or distribute any material from this web site in any physical or digital form without the permission of the copyright owner of the material.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 10th, 3:00 PM

Quality of life and presence of symptom clusters during baseline neurocognitive testing.

Quality of life and presence of symptom clusters during baseline neurocognitive testing.

Asewicz EA*, Bradney DA*, Bowman TG*, Register-Mihalik JK†, *University of Lynchburg, Lynchburg, VA, †University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC

Context: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) measures are used to evaluate and monitor physical, mental, and social health. Measures of HRQOL are becoming more popular in collegiate student-athletes as mental health issues are becoming destigmatized and screening and treatment are incorporated into sport performance. Little research has studied factors that may affect HRQOL measures. The presence of symptoms during baseline neurocognitive testing may provide influence reports into a patient’s HRQOL. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between self-reported symptom cluster severity scores during baseline concussion testing and health related quality of life measures. Methods: We recruited 271 intercollegiate athletes participating in lacrosse, basketball, field hockey, and soccer over the past three years (age=19.00±1.15 years, height=175.18±4.29 cm, mass=72.29±12.03 kg). Participants completed a comprehensive baseline concussion battery which included the 22-item symptom checklist from the SCAT 5 and a HRQOL screen including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS-29) inventory and the cognitive and fatigue scales from the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders scale (Neuro-QOL). After completion, we grouped SCAT 5 symptoms into four symptom cluster severity scores (cognitive-sensory, sleep-arousal, vestibular-somatic, and affective) which served as the independent variables. The PROMIS subsection scores (anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, sleep disturbance, social roles, fatigue, cognitive function) and the Neuro-QOL subsets (fatigue SF, Cognitive Function SF) served as the dependent variables. We ran stepwise multiple linear regression for each of the HRQOL subsection scores using the symptom cluster severity scores as the predictor variables. Results: Participants reported cognitive-sensory cluster symptoms most often (68.6%, mean=3.11±3.97, range=0-20) followed by affective (38.2%, mean=1.36±2.77, range=0-21), sleep arousal (32.9%, mean=0.70±1.33, range=0-7), and vestibular-somatic (31.1%, mean=0.76±1.81, range=0-14). Higher cognitive-sensory and affective symptom cluster severity scores were associated with worse cognitive function SF (F2, 262=42.78, P

Conclusions: Findings suggest that quality of life is affected by self-reported symptom cluster severity scores. Identifying the presence of symptom clusters in collegiate athletes may provide insight into potential negative HRQOL outcomes. Healthcare professionals may use symptom scores and HRQOL measures to help identify those in need of referral to mental health professionals.

Word Count: 435

DV

IV

B (Slope)

t

P

Lower CI 95%

Upper CI 95%

Model F

R2

Cognitive Function

CS

-0.51

-5.67

<.001

-0.69

-0.33

42.78

0.23

A

-0.35

-2.68

0.01

-0.61

-0.09

0.25

Fatigue SF

CS

0.52

6.26

<.001

0.35

0.68

70.00

0.30

A

0.55

4.59

<.001

0.32

0.79

0.35

Social Roles

A

-0.15

-3.37

<.001

-0.28

-0.07

19.37

0.10

SA

-0.25

-2.99

0.003

-0.42

-0.09

0.13

Sleep Disturbance

SA

1.05

7.36

<.001

0.77

1.33

50.63

0.26

A

0.20

2.93

<.01

0.07

0.34

0.28

Pain Intensity

CS

0.13

5.94

<.001

0.09

0.17

35.32

0.12

Pain Interference

CS

0.06

3.23

0.001

0.03

0.10

10.66

0.04

Fatigue

A

0.59

8.12

<.001

0.45

0.73

132.11

0.42

CS

0.34

6.78

<.001

0.24

0.44

0.50

Depression

A

0.37

9.98

<.001

0.30

0.44

75.58

0.35

SA

0.16

2.10

0.04

0.01

0.31

0.36

Anxiety

A

0.50

7.80

<.001

0.37

0.63

62.79

0.31

CS

0.09

2.03

0.04

0.00

0.18

0.32

Physical Function

CS

-0.04

-3.45

0.001

-0.07

-0.02

11.90

0.04

BSI Total

A

0.88

9.50

<.001

0.70

1.06

91.41

0.46

CS

0.24

3.50

0.01

0.10

0.37

0.50

SA

0.41

2.20

0.03

0.05

0.78

0.51