Home › Research › Risk factors
Inclusion of hearing and vision impairments in cognitive training interventions
Francesca R Marino, Kening Jiang, Jason R Smith, Diefei Chen, Marian Tzuang, Nicholas S Reed, Bonnielin K Swenor, Jennifer A Deal et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2023-02-20
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Among the 130 articles included in the review, 103 were cognitive training interventions (79%) and 27 were multimodal interventions (21%). More than half the trials systematically excluded participants with hearing and/or vision impairment (n = 60, 58%). Few studies reported hearing and vision measurement (cognitive: n = 16, 16%; multimodal: n = 3, 11%) or incorporated universal design and accessibility into intervention design (cognitive: n = 7, 7%; multimodal: n = 0, 0%). Older adults with hearing and vision impairment are underrepresented in cognitive training interventions. Reporting of hearing and vision measurement, proper justification of exclusions, and inclusion of accessibility and universal intervention design are also lacking. These findings raise concerns about whether current trial findings apply to those with hearing and vision impairment and generalize to the broader population of older adults. It is critical to include more diverse study populations and integrate accessibility into intervention design to include and better represent older adults with hearing and vision impairment. HIGHLIGHTS: Cognitive training interventions underrepresent hearing and vision impairment.Sensory measurement and proper justification of exclusions are rarely reported.Interventions lack inclusion of accessibility and universal intervention design.More diverse study populations are needed in cognitive training interventions.Integration of accessibility into cognitive training intervention design is needed.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Marino, F. R., Jiang, K., Smith, J. R., Chen, D., Tzuang, M., Reed, N. S., et al. (2023). Inclusion of hearing and vision impairments in cognitive training interventions. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12374
Vancouver
Marino FR, Jiang K, Smith JR, Chen D, Tzuang M, Reed NS, et al. Inclusion of hearing and vision impairments in cognitive training interventions. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 2023. doi:10.1002/trc2.12374. PMID: 36873925.
BibTeX
@article{marino2023-36873925,
author = {Marino, Francesca R and Jiang, Kening and Smith, Jason R and Chen, Diefei and Tzuang, Marian and Reed, Nicholas S and Swenor, Bonnielin K and Deal, Jennifer A and others},
title = {{Inclusion of hearing and vision impairments in cognitive training interventions}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (New York, N. Y.)},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/trc2.12374},
pmid = {36873925},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12374}
}
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.
Key findings
- Among the 130 articles included in the review, 103 were cognitive training interventions (79%) and 27 were multimodal interventions (21%).
- More than half the trials systematically excluded participants with hearing and/or vision impairment (n = 60, 58%).
- Few studies reported hearing and vision measurement (cognitive: n = 16, 16%; multimodal: n = 3, 11%) or incorporated universal design and accessibility into intervention design (cognitive: n = 7, 7%; multimodal: n = 0, 0%).
- Older adults with hearing and vision impairment are underrepresented in cognitive training interventions.
- Reporting of hearing and vision measurement, proper justification of exclusions, and inclusion of accessibility and universal intervention design are also lacking.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants60
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)) |
| 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 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 60 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36873925) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 33 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 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 Risk factors
Also tagged “hearing”
119 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 119 tagged studies.