Home › Research › Prevention trials
Cognitive intervention through a training program for picture book reading in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial
Suzuki H, Kuraoka M, Yasunaga M, Nonaka K, Sakurai R, Takeuchi R, Murayama Y, Ohba H et al.. BMC geriatrics, 2014-11-21
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Non-pharmacological interventions are expected to be important strategies for reducing the age-adjusted prevalence of senile dementia, considering that complete medical treatment for cognitive decline has not yet been developed. From the viewpoint of long-term continuity of activity, it is necessary to develop various cognitive stimulating programs. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a cognitive intervention through a training program for picture book reading for community-dwelling older adults. Methods Fifty-eight Japanese older participants were divided into the intervention and control groups using simple randomization (n =29 vs 29). In the intervention group, participants took part in a program aimed at learning and mastering methods of picture book reading as a form of cognitive training intervention. The control group listened to lectures about elderly health maintenance. Cognitive tests were conducted individually before and after the programs. Results The rate of memory retention, computed by dividing Logical Memory delayed recall by immediate recall, showed a significant interaction (p < .05) in analysis of covariance. Simple main effects showed that the rate of memory retention of the intervention group improved after the program completion (p < .05). In the participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) examined by Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) (n =14 vs 15), significant interactions were seen in Trail Making Test-A (p < .01), Trail Making Test-B (p < .05), Kana pick-out test (p < .05) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (p < .05). Conclusions The intervention effect was found in delayed verbal memory. This program is also effective for improving attention and executive function in those with MCI. The short-term interventional findings suggest that this program might contribute to preventing a decline in memory and executive function. Trial registration umin-ctr UMIN000014712 (Date of ICMJE and WHO compliant trial information disclosure: 30 July 2014).
Key findings
- Results The rate of memory retention, computed by dividing Logical Memory delayed recall by immediate recall, showed a significant interaction (p < .05) in analysis of covariance.
- Simple main effects showed that the rate of memory retention of the intervention group improved after the program completion (p < .05).
- In the participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) examined by Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) (n =14 vs 15), significant interactions were seen in Trail Making Test-A (p < .01), Trail Making Test-B (p < .05), Kana pick-out test (p < .05) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (p < .05).
- The short-term interventional findings suggest that this program might contribute to preventing a decline in memory and executive function.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants29
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 29 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25416537) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Suzuki, H., Kuraoka, M., Yasunaga, M., Nonaka, K., Sakurai, R., Takeuchi, R., et al. (2014). Cognitive intervention through a training program for picture book reading in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-122
Vancouver
Suzuki H, Kuraoka M, Yasunaga M, Nonaka K, Sakurai R, Takeuchi R, et al. Cognitive intervention through a training program for picture book reading in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial. BMC geriatrics. 2014. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-122. PMID: 25416537.
BibTeX
@article{suzuki2014-25416537,
author = {Suzuki, H. and Kuraoka, M. and Yasunaga, M. and Nonaka, K. and Sakurai, R. and Takeuchi, R. and Murayama, Y. and Ohba, H. and others},
title = {{Cognitive intervention through a training program for picture book reading in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1186/1471-2318-14-122},
pmid = {25416537},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-122}
}