↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive Interventions for Cognitively Healthy, Mildly Impaired, and Mixed Samples of Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychology Review, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
Cognitive Interventions for Cognitively Healthy, Mildly Impaired, and Mixed Samples of Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials
Published in
Neuropsychology Review, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11065-017-9350-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine M. Mewborn, Cutter A. Lindbergh, L. Stephen Miller

Abstract

Cognitive interventions may improve cognition, delay age-related cognitive declines, and improve quality of life for older adults. The current meta-analysis was conducted to update and expand previous work on the efficacy of cognitive interventions for older adults and to examine the impact of key demographic and methodological variables. EBSCOhost and Embase online databases and reference lists were searched to identify relevant randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy or mildly impaired (MCI) older adults (60+ years). Interventions trained a single cognitive domain (e.g., memory) or were multi-domain training, and outcomes were assessed immediately post-intervention using standard neuropsychological tests. In total, 279 effects from 97 studies were pooled based on a random-effects model and expressed as Hedges' g (unbiased). Overall, results indicated that cognitive interventions produce a small, but significant, improvement in the cognitive functioning of older adults, relative to active and passive control groups (g = 0.298, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.248-0.347). These results were confirmed using multi-level analyses adjusting for nesting of effect sizes within studies (g = 0.362, p < .001, 95% CI = 0.275, 0.449). Age, education, and cognitive status (healthy vs. MCI) were not significant moderators. Working memory interventions proved most effective (g = 0.479), though memory, processing speed, and multi-domain interventions also significantly improved cognition. Effects were larger for directly trained outcomes but were also significant for non-trained outcomes (i.e., "transfer effects"). Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed. This project was pre-registered with PROSPERO (#42016038386).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 15%
Student > Master 23 13%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 50 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 28%
Neuroscience 15 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 6%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 60 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,394,130
of 25,711,194 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#337
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,689
of 326,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,194 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.