Effectiveness of cognitive stimulation for dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2021-05-01 Epub Date: 2021-05-24 DOI:10.1037/bul0000325
Robin M T Cafferata, Ben Hicks, Claudia C von Bastian
{"title":"Effectiveness of cognitive stimulation for dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Robin M T Cafferata,&nbsp;Ben Hicks,&nbsp;Claudia C von Bastian","doi":"10.1037/bul0000325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive stimulation (CS) is a nonpharmacological intervention often involving group activities and social interaction used to treat cognitive declines in people with dementia. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of CS in producing benefits on cognition (primary outcome) and quality of life, activities of daily living, and psychological symptoms (secondary outcomes) across 44 randomized-controlled trials comprising 45 comparisons including 2,444 participants. A medium-sized effect (g = .49) on global cognition was found immediately after the intervention and was supported by decisive Bayesian evidence. Clinical relevance is defined as a reduction of 3 to 4 points on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale; the average attenuation of cognitive decline observed was 2.41 points (after removing 1 outlier). Therefore, the observed decline was of borderline clinical relevance. CS was also found to significantly improve memory, activities of daily living, depressive symptoms, and dementia ratings; most of these effects were supported by substantial and strong Bayesian evidence. No significant effects were found for global cognition at 1 to 10 months follow-up assessment for language, quality of life, anxiety, and behavior symptoms. However, evidence for the absence of these effects was ambiguous. A review of study bias highlighted that most studies lacked active, double-blinded controls, potentially leading to an overestimation of the effect, and making it difficult to conclusively attribute the observed improvements to the CS intervention. Hence, although effects are promising, the methodological issues highlight there is still a need for better controlled studies that provide more compelling evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"147 5","pages":"455-476"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000325","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Cognitive stimulation (CS) is a nonpharmacological intervention often involving group activities and social interaction used to treat cognitive declines in people with dementia. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of CS in producing benefits on cognition (primary outcome) and quality of life, activities of daily living, and psychological symptoms (secondary outcomes) across 44 randomized-controlled trials comprising 45 comparisons including 2,444 participants. A medium-sized effect (g = .49) on global cognition was found immediately after the intervention and was supported by decisive Bayesian evidence. Clinical relevance is defined as a reduction of 3 to 4 points on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale; the average attenuation of cognitive decline observed was 2.41 points (after removing 1 outlier). Therefore, the observed decline was of borderline clinical relevance. CS was also found to significantly improve memory, activities of daily living, depressive symptoms, and dementia ratings; most of these effects were supported by substantial and strong Bayesian evidence. No significant effects were found for global cognition at 1 to 10 months follow-up assessment for language, quality of life, anxiety, and behavior symptoms. However, evidence for the absence of these effects was ambiguous. A review of study bias highlighted that most studies lacked active, double-blinded controls, potentially leading to an overestimation of the effect, and making it difficult to conclusively attribute the observed improvements to the CS intervention. Hence, although effects are promising, the methodological issues highlight there is still a need for better controlled studies that provide more compelling evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知刺激治疗痴呆的有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
认知刺激(CS)是一种非药物干预,通常涉及群体活动和社会互动,用于治疗痴呆症患者的认知能力下降。本预注册的系统回顾和荟萃分析评估了CS在认知(主要结局)、生活质量、日常生活活动和心理症状(次要结局)方面的有效性,涉及44个随机对照试验,包括45个比较,包括2,444名参与者。干预后立即发现了对全局认知的中等效应(g = .49),并得到决定性贝叶斯证据的支持。临床相关性的定义是在阿尔茨海默病评估量表认知亚量表上减少3到4分;观察到的认知衰退平均衰减为2.41点(剔除1个异常值后)。因此,观察到的下降具有边缘性临床相关性。研究还发现,CS可显著改善记忆、日常生活活动、抑郁症状和痴呆评分;这些影响大多得到了大量有力的贝叶斯证据的支持。在1至10个月的语言、生活质量、焦虑和行为症状随访评估中,未发现对整体认知有显著影响。然而,没有这些影响的证据是模糊的。对研究偏倚的回顾强调,大多数研究缺乏主动的双盲对照,这可能导致对效果的高估,并且难以将观察到的改善最终归因于CS干预。因此,尽管效果是有希望的,但方法问题突出表明,仍然需要更好的对照研究,以提供更有说服力的证据。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
期刊最新文献
Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Supporting the status quo is weakly associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of the palliative function of ideology across social status groups using a meta-analytic approach. When connecting with LGBTQ+ communities helps and why it does: A meta-analysis of the relationship between connectedness and health-related outcomes. Who am I? A second-order meta-analytic review of correlates of the self in childhood and adolescence. Defining social reward: A systematic review of human and animal studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1