Home › Research › Prevention trials
Computerized Cognitive Training for Older Adults at Higher Dementia Risk due to Diabetes: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bahar-Fuchs A, Barendse MEA, Bloom R, Ravona-Springer R, Heymann A, Dabush H, Bar L, Slater-Barkan S et al.. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2020-03-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background To evaluate the effects of adaptive and tailored computerized cognitive training on cognition and disease self-management in older adults with diabetes. Methods This was a single-blind trial. Eighty-four community-dwelling older adults with diabetes were randomized into a tailored and adaptive computerized cognitive training or a generic, non-tailored or adaptive computerized cognitive training condition. Both groups trained for 8 weeks on the commercially available CogniFit program and were supported by a range of behavior change techniques. Participants in each condition were further randomized into a global or cognition-specific self-efficacy intervention, or to a no self-efficacy condition. The primary outcome was global cognition immediately following the intervention. Secondary outcomes included diabetes self-management, meta-memory, mood, and self-efficacy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the training, and at a 6-month follow-up. Results Adherence and retention were lower in the generic computerized cognitive training condition, but the self-efficacy intervention was not associated with adherence. Moderate improvements in performance on a global cognitive composite at the posttreatment assessments were observed in both cognitive training conditions, with further small improvement observed at the 6-month follow-up. Results for diabetes self-management showed a modest improvement on self-rated diabetes care for both intervention conditions following the treatment, which was maintained at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusions Our findings suggest that older adults at higher dementia risk due to diabetes can show improvements in both cognition and disease self-management following home-based multidomain computerized cognitive training. These findings also suggest that adaptive difficulty and individual task tailoring may not be critical components of such interventions. Trial registration NCT02709629.
Key findings
- Results Adherence and retention were lower in the generic computerized cognitive training condition, but the self-efficacy intervention was not associated with adherence.
- Results for diabetes self-management showed a modest improvement on self-rated diabetes care for both intervention conditions following the treatment, which was maintained at the 6-month follow-up.
- Conclusions Our findings suggest that older adults at higher dementia risk due to diabetes can show improvements in both cognition and disease self-management following home-based multidomain computerized cognitive training.
- These findings also suggest that adaptive difficulty and individual task tailoring may not be critical components of such interventions.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences) |
| 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 | 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (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 30868154) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 42 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 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
Bahar-Fuchs, A., Barendse, M. E. A., Bloom, R., Ravona-Springer, R., Heymann, A., Dabush, H., et al. (2020). Computerized Cognitive Training for Older Adults at Higher Dementia Risk due to Diabetes: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glz073
Vancouver
Bahar-Fuchs A, Barendse MEA, Bloom R, Ravona-Springer R, Heymann A, Dabush H, et al. Computerized Cognitive Training for Older Adults at Higher Dementia Risk due to Diabetes: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2020. doi:10.1093/gerona/glz073. PMID: 30868154.
BibTeX
@article{baharfuchs2020-30868154,
author = {Bahar-Fuchs, A. and Barendse, M. E. A. and Bloom, R. and Ravona-Springer, R. and Heymann, A. and Dabush, H. and Bar, L. and Slater-Barkan, S. and others},
title = {{Computerized Cognitive Training for Older Adults at Higher Dementia Risk due to Diabetes: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial}},
journal = {The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1093/gerona/glz073},
pmid = {30868154},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glz073}
}