Home › Research › Prevention trials
A literature review of spaced-retrieval interventions: a direct memory intervention for people with dementia
Creighton AS, van der Ploeg ES, O'Connor DW.. International psychogeriatrics, 2013-07-25
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background With the increasing prevalence of dementia, there is a pressing need to identify effective interventions that prolong independent functioning. As pharmacological interventions aimed at slowing cognitive decline have been found to have a number of limitations, research has now moved toward studying complementary non-pharmacological cognitive training interventions. This review describes the use of spaced-retrieval as a method to teach new information and reduce behavioral problems in people with dementia. Methods We searched the databases PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and Scopus as well as reference lists of relevant papers to identify articles describing the use of spaced-retrieval with people with dementia. Only primary, peer-reviewed research published in English was included in this review. Results In total, 34 studies were identified, three of which were randomized controlled trials. We found that across studies, there was wide variability with regard to design, methodology, and outcome measures used. Nonetheless, the existing research demonstrates that spaced-retrieval training can be successfully used to teach people with dementia new and previously known face- and object-name associations, as well as cue-behavior associations aimed at alleviating problem behaviors and improving functional skills. The method can also assist with the recollection of past events. Conclusions Current evidence indicates that spaced-retrieval training is effective in enabling people with dementia to learn new information and behavioral strategies. Future research should attempt to address the limitations outlined in this review and focus on utilizing this technique to achieve more functional and clinically relevant outcomes. Recommendations are also made with regard to investigating potential secondary benefits of spaced-retrieval and strengthening study design.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Creighton, A. S., van der Ploeg, E. S., & O'Connor, D. W. (2013). A literature review of spaced-retrieval interventions: a direct memory intervention for people with dementia. International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610213001233
Vancouver
Creighton AS, van der Ploeg ES, O'Connor DW. A literature review of spaced-retrieval interventions: a direct memory intervention for people with dementia. International psychogeriatrics. 2013. doi:10.1017/s1041610213001233. PMID: 23886395.
BibTeX
@article{creighton2013-23886395,
author = {Creighton, A. S. and van der Ploeg, E. S. and O'Connor, D. W.},
title = {{A literature review of spaced-retrieval interventions: a direct memory intervention for people with dementia}},
journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1017/s1041610213001233},
pmid = {23886395},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610213001233}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results In total, 34 studies were identified, three of which were randomized controlled trials.
- We found that across studies, there was wide variability with regard to design, methodology, and outcome measures used.
- Conclusions Current evidence indicates that spaced-retrieval training is effective in enabling people with dementia to learn new information and behavioral strategies.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International psychogeriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomized (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23886395) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.