↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of Cognitive Rehabilitation Therapies for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in Older Adults: Working Toward a Theoretical Model and Evidence-Based Interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychology Review, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
421 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of Cognitive Rehabilitation Therapies for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in Older Adults: Working Toward a Theoretical Model and Evidence-Based Interventions
Published in
Neuropsychology Review, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11065-013-9230-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marilyn Huckans, Lee Hutson, Elizabeth Twamley, Amy Jak, Jeffrey Kaye, Daniel Storzbach

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapies (CRTs) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Our review revealed a need for evidence-based treatments for MCI and a lack of a theoretical rehabilitation model to guide the development and evaluation of these interventions. We have thus proposed a theoretical rehabilitation model of MCI that yields key intervention targets-cognitive compromise, functional compromise, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and modifiable risk and protective factors known to be associated with MCI and dementia. Our model additionally defines specific cognitive rehabilitation approaches that may directly or indirectly target key outcomes-restorative cognitive training, compensatory cognitive training, lifestyle interventions, and psychotherapeutic techniques. Fourteen randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Studies markedly varied in terms of intervention approaches and selected outcome measures and were frequently hampered by design limitations. The bulk of the evidence suggested that CRTs can change targeted behaviors in individuals with MCI and that CRTs are associated with improvements in objective cognitive performance, but the pattern of effects on specific cognitive domains was inconsistent across studies. Other important outcomes (i.e., daily functioning, quality of life, neuropsychiatric symptom severity) were infrequently assessed across studies. Few studies evaluated long-term outcomes or the impact of CRTs on conversion rates from MCI to dementia or normal cognition. Overall, results from trials are promising but inconclusive. Additional well-designed and adequately powered trials are warranted and required before CRTs for MCI can be considered evidence-based.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 421 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 410 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 14%
Researcher 41 10%
Student > Bachelor 38 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 6%
Other 68 16%
Unknown 118 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 127 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 8%
Neuroscience 27 6%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Other 44 10%
Unknown 134 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,802,063
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#61
of 504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,008
of 212,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.