Zita C K Tse, Yuan Cao, James M Ogilvie, Bolton K H Chau, Daphne H C Ng, David H K Shum
{"title":"Prospective Memory Training in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Zita C K Tse, Yuan Cao, James M Ogilvie, Bolton K H Chau, Daphne H C Ng, David H K Shum","doi":"10.1007/s11065-022-09536-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prospective memory (PM), which enables one to remember to carry out delayed intentions, is crucial for everyday functioning. PM commonly deteriorates upon cognitive decline in older adults, but several studies have shown that PM in older adults can be improved by training. The current study aimed to summarise this evidence by conducting a qualitative systematic analysis and quantitative meta-analysis of the effects of PM training in older adults, for which systematic searches were conducted across seven databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus). Forty-eight studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 43% of the assessed PM training interventions showed positive gains in enhancing PM. However, the methodological quality varied across the studies, with 41% of the non-randomised control trials (non-RCTs) rated as having either serious or critical risk of bias. Therefore, only 29 RCTs were included in the subsequent quantitative meta-analysis. We found a significant and moderate immediate efficacy (Hedges' g = 0.54) of PM training in enhancing PM performance in older adults, but no significant long-term efficacy (Hedges' g = 0.20). Two subgroup analyses also revealed a robust training efficacy across the study population (i.e., healthy and clinical population) and the number of training sessions (i.e., single session and programme-based). Overall, this study provided positive evidence to support PM training in older adults. Further studies are warranted to explore the mechanisms by which PM training exerts its effects, and better-quality RCTs are needed to provide more robust evidence supporting our findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10148783/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09536-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Prospective memory (PM), which enables one to remember to carry out delayed intentions, is crucial for everyday functioning. PM commonly deteriorates upon cognitive decline in older adults, but several studies have shown that PM in older adults can be improved by training. The current study aimed to summarise this evidence by conducting a qualitative systematic analysis and quantitative meta-analysis of the effects of PM training in older adults, for which systematic searches were conducted across seven databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus). Forty-eight studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 43% of the assessed PM training interventions showed positive gains in enhancing PM. However, the methodological quality varied across the studies, with 41% of the non-randomised control trials (non-RCTs) rated as having either serious or critical risk of bias. Therefore, only 29 RCTs were included in the subsequent quantitative meta-analysis. We found a significant and moderate immediate efficacy (Hedges' g = 0.54) of PM training in enhancing PM performance in older adults, but no significant long-term efficacy (Hedges' g = 0.20). Two subgroup analyses also revealed a robust training efficacy across the study population (i.e., healthy and clinical population) and the number of training sessions (i.e., single session and programme-based). Overall, this study provided positive evidence to support PM training in older adults. Further studies are warranted to explore the mechanisms by which PM training exerts its effects, and better-quality RCTs are needed to provide more robust evidence supporting our findings.
前瞻记忆(PM)使人们能够记住执行延迟的意图,对日常功能至关重要。老年人的认知能力下降通常会使PM恶化,但一些研究表明,老年人的PM可以通过训练得到改善。目前的研究旨在通过对老年人PM训练的效果进行定性系统分析和定量荟萃分析来总结这一证据,为此在七个数据库(Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL和Scopus)中进行了系统搜索。48项研究被纳入定性分析,43%的评估PM培训干预措施在增强PM方面显示出积极的收益。然而,不同研究的方法学质量各不相同,41%的非随机对照试验(non- rct)被评为有严重或严重的偏倚风险。因此,在随后的定量荟萃分析中只纳入了29项rct。我们发现PM训练在提高老年人PM表现方面具有显著和中等的即时疗效(Hedges' g = 0.54),但没有显著的长期疗效(Hedges' g = 0.20)。两个亚组分析还揭示了整个研究人群(即健康人群和临床人群)和培训课程数量(即单次课程和基于计划的课程)的强大培训效果。总的来说,本研究为老年人的PM训练提供了积极的证据。需要进一步的研究来探索PM培训发挥其作用的机制,并且需要更好质量的随机对照试验来提供更有力的证据来支持我们的发现。
期刊介绍:
Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.