Table 9 Case ascertainment strategies in comparison (summary)
Case ascertainment strategy | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
Study diagnosis | â–ª The most valid inclusion criterion if recommended diagnostic procedures are followed | â–ª Requires intense resources â–ª Burdens the resident â–ª Is ethically questionable in the nursing home population â–ª Decreases willingness to participate |
Recorded diagnosis | â–ª Requires little resources â–ª Easy and quick to assess â–ª No burden for the resident â–ª Increases willingness to participate | â–ª Validity of the diagnosis cannot be assured â–ª Residents without a recorded diagnosis are systematically excluded â–ª Potential inclusion of false-positives â–ª Differential diagnosis is often missing |
Recorded diagnosis and screening result | â–ª Requires little resources â–ª Easy and quick to assess â–ª No burden for the resident if proxy-ratings are used â–ª Increases willingness to participate if the resident is not burdened with assessment procedures | â–ª Validity of the diagnosis cannot thoroughly be assured, but with the help of screening results false-positives can be detected and verified â–ª Residents without a recorded diagnosis are systematically excluded, unless residents with a probable diagnosis are also screened and a new diagnosis is evaluated â–ª Validity of the recorded diagnosis cannot be assured â–ª Differential diagnosis is often missing |
Screening result | â–ª Requires little resources â–ª Easy and quick to assess â–ª No burden for the resident if proxy-ratings are used â–ª Increases willingness to participate if the resident is not burdened with assessment procedures | â–ª The declaration of the existence of a dementia is not entirely possible â–ª Enables the selection of residents that are homogenous with regard to the screened condition but cannot prevent heterogeneity of other conditions |