Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Given projected increases in dementia prevalence, emphasising earlier stages of cognitive impairment in older adults enables targeted early intervention strategies. Strategy-based cognitive training (SCT) is a remedial approach involving guidance and practice in compensatory techniques to improve cognition, including memory and attention. It may also be effective for improving executive functions (EF) integral to everyday tasks. This review systematically evaluates SCT effects on EF in older adults without dementia. Following PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed eligible trials according to pre-defined criteria, differentiating SCT from other cognitive interventions and stipulating total EF-focused intervention time, study design and target population (healthy older adults or mild cognitive decline). We then evaluated trials according to design, methodological quality and outcomes. Unfortunately, with too few studies in mild cognitive impairment, we refocused our review only on healthy older adults. Thirteen studies with 4120 participants in total were included, primarily targeting inductive reasoning. Despite heterogeneous study designs and SCT programs, 11/13 trials reported significant EF improvements, generally of moderate effect size (Hedges' g > 0.3). Four studies reported sustained benefits from one month to 10 years. There was some evidence of far transfer. We conclude that there is promising evidence for SCT as a targeted intervention for EF in healthy older adults and preliminary evidence for maintaining effects over time. Fewer trials have investigated far transfer (e.g. improved everyday functioning) or capacity to delay/prevent dementia, which are most relevant to clinical utility. Limitations include the inability to calculate effect sizes for four studies and absence of statistical meta-analysis.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 74/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 43 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 74 of 100. Total 74 of 100.43 of the 58 points we could judge = 74 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropsychology review)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A meta-analysis pooling many studies
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 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 4,120 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 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
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 27613718)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 43 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100.
Total 74 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Mowszowski, L., Lampit, A., Walton, C. C., & Naismith, S. L. (2016). Strategy-Based Cognitive Training for Improving Executive Functions in Older Adults: a Systematic Review. Neuropsychology review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9329-x

Vancouver

Mowszowski L, Lampit A, Walton CC, Naismith SL. Strategy-Based Cognitive Training for Improving Executive Functions in Older Adults: a Systematic Review. Neuropsychology review. 2016. doi:10.1007/s11065-016-9329-x. PMID: 27613718.

BibTeX

@article{mowszowski2016-27613718,
  author  = {Mowszowski, L. and Lampit, A. and Walton, C. C. and Naismith, S. L.},
  title   = {{Strategy-Based Cognitive Training for Improving Executive Functions in Older Adults: a Systematic Review}},
  journal = {Neuropsychology review},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11065-016-9329-x},
  pmid    = {27613718},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9329-x}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →