SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Self- versus caregiver-reported apathy across neurological disorders

Zhao, S; Scholcz, A; Rouse, MA; Klar, VS; Ganse-Dumrath, A; Toniolo, S; Broulidakis, MJ; Lambon Ralph, MA; Rowe, JB; Garrard, P; et al. Zhao, S; Scholcz, A; Rouse, MA; Klar, VS; Ganse-Dumrath, A; Toniolo, S; Broulidakis, MJ; Lambon Ralph, MA; Rowe, JB; Garrard, P; Thompson, S; Irani, SR; Manohar, SG; Husain, M (2025) Self- versus caregiver-reported apathy across neurological disorders. Brain Communications, 7 (3). fcaf235. ISSN 2632-1297 https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaf235
SGUL Authors: Garrard, Peter

[img] PDF Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (2MB)
[img] Microsoft Word (.docx) (Supplementary data) Supporting information
Download (187kB)

Abstract

Apathy is a prevalent and persistent neuropsychiatric syndrome across many neurological disorders, significantly impacting both patients and caregivers. We systematically quantified discrepancies between self- and caregiver-reported apathy in 335 patients with a variety of diagnoses, such as frontotemporal dementia (behavioural variant and semantic dementia subtypes), Parkinson’s disease, Parkinson’s disease dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, Alzheimer’s disease dementia, mild cognitive impairment, small vessel cerebrovascular disease, subjective cognitive decline and autoimmune encephalitis. Using the Apathy Motivation Index (AMI) and its analogous caregiver version (AMI-CG), we found that caregiver-reported apathy consistently exceeded self-reported levels across all conditions. Moreover, self-reported apathy accounted for only 14.1% of the variance in caregiver ratings. This apathy reporting discrepancy was most pronounced in conditions associated with impaired insight, such as behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, and was significantly correlated with cognitive impairment. Deficits in memory and fluency explained an additional 11.2% of the variance in caregiver-reported apathy. Specifically, executive function deficits (e.g. indexed by fluency) and memory impairments may contribute to behavioural inertia or recall of it. These findings highlight the need to integrate patient and caregiver perspectives in apathy assessments, especially for conditions with prominent cognitive impairment. To improve diagnostic accuracy and deepen our understanding of apathy across neurological disorders, we highlight the need for adapted apathy assessment strategies that account for cognitive impairment particularly in individuals with insight or memory deficits. Understanding the cognitive mechanisms underpinning discordant apathy reporting in dementia might help inform targeted clinical interventions and reduce caregiver burden.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Keywords: rating discrepancy, informant report, dementia, impaired insight, cognitive impairment
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute
Academic Structure > Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute > Neurological Disorders & Imaging
Journal or Publication Title: Brain Communications
ISSN: 2632-1297
Language: en
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
UNSPECIFIEDWellcome Trusthttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440
UNSPECIFIEDNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research CentreUNSPECIFIED
226645/Z/22/ZWellcome Trusthttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440
ES/P000649/1Economic and Social Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269
UNSPECIFIEDNew College, University of Oxfordhttps://doi.org/10.13039/100010353
MR/P00878/XMedical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
SUAG/096 G116768Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
MC_UU_00030/14Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
MR/T033371,1Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
220258Wellcome Trusthttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440
NIHR203312National Institute for Health Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272
MR/R023883/1Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
MC_UU_00005/18Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
MR/V007173/1Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
104079/Z/14/ZWellcome Trusthttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440
UNSPECIFIEDNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centrehttps://doi.org/10.13039/501100013373
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/117661
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaf235

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item