Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Determinants of Adherence to a "GRADIOR" Computer-Based Cognitive Training Program in People with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Mild Dementia
Diaz Baquero AA, Perea Bartolomé MV, Toribio-Guzmán JM, Martínez-Abad F, Parra Vidales E, Bueno Aguado Y, van der Roest HG, Franco-Martín MA.. Journal of clinical medicine, 2022-03-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Computer-based programs have been implemented from a psychosocial approach for the care of people with dementia (PwD). However, several factors may determine adherence of older PwD to this type of treatment. The aim of this paper was to identify the sociodemographic, cognitive, psychological, and physical-health determinants that helped predict adherence or not to a "GRADIOR" computerized cognitive training (CCT) program in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia. Method This study was part of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) (ISRCTN: 15742788). However, this study will only focus on the experimental group ( n = 43) included in the RCT. This group was divided into adherent people (compliance: ≥60% of the sessions and persistence in treatment up to 4 months) and non-adherent. The participants were 60-90 age and diagnosed with MCI and mild dementia. We selected from the evaluation protocol for the RCT, tests that evaluated cognitive aspects (memory and executive functioning), psychological and physical health. The CCT with GRADIOR consisted of attending 2-3 weekly sessions for 4 months with a duration of 30 min Data analysis: Phi and Biserial-point correlations, a multiple logical regression analysis was obtained to find the adherence model and U Mann-Whitney was used. Results The adherence model was made up of the Digit Symbol and Arithmetic of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) and Lexical Verbal Fluency (LVF) -R tests. This model had 90% sensitivity, 50% specificity and 75% precision. The goodness-of-fit p -value of the model was 0.02. Conclusions good executive functioning in attention, working memory (WM), phonological verbal fluency and cognitive flexibility predicted a greater probability that a person would be adherent.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Diaz Baquero, A. A., Perea Bartolomé, M. V., Toribio-Guzmán, J. M., Martínez-Abad, F., Parra Vidales, E., Bueno Aguado, Y., et al. (2022). Determinants of Adherence to a "GRADIOR" Computer-Based Cognitive Training Program in People with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Mild Dementia. Journal of clinical medicine. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061714
Vancouver
Diaz Baquero AA, Perea Bartolomé MV, Toribio-Guzmán JM, Martínez-Abad F, Parra Vidales E, Bueno Aguado Y, et al. Determinants of Adherence to a "GRADIOR" Computer-Based Cognitive Training Program in People with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Mild Dementia. Journal of clinical medicine. 2022. doi:10.3390/jcm11061714. PMID: 35330040.
BibTeX
@article{diazbaquero2022-35330040,
author = {Diaz Baquero, A. A. and Perea Bartolomé, M. V. and Toribio-Guzmán, J. M. and Martínez-Abad, F. and Parra Vidales, E. and Bueno Aguado, Y. and van der Roest, H. G. and Franco-Martín, M. A.},
title = {{Determinants of Adherence to a "GRADIOR" Computer-Based Cognitive Training Program in People with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Mild Dementia}},
journal = {Journal of clinical medicine},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3390/jcm11061714},
pmid = {35330040},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061714}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The adherence model was made up of the Digit Symbol and Arithmetic of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) and Lexical Verbal Fluency (LVF) -R tests.
Study details
- Participants43
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded 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 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical medicine) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 43 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 | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 35330040) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “mci”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mci”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.