Cognitive interventions for healthy older adults: A systematic meta-review

IF 5.3 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100538

Vitória Velloso , Sofia Latgé-Tovar , Iris Bomilcar , Daniel C. Mograbi

{"title":"Cognitive interventions for healthy older adults: A systematic meta-review","authors":"Vitória Velloso , Sofia Latgé-Tovar , Iris Bomilcar , Daniel C. Mograbi","doi":"10.1016/j.ijchp.2024.100538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>With increasing global life expectancy, cognitive interventions hold promise in mitigating cognitive decline and fostering healthy aging. Despite the demand for evidence-based interventions, there have been few attempts to summarize existing evidence. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of unimodal and multimodal cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy older adults.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Systematic meta-review, selecting articles from four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Quality assessment carried out with AMSTAR2. Findings were summarized and discussed narratively.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-nine articles were included, with 21 meta-analyses and 18 qualitative systematic reviews. The total number of reviews was 38 for cognitive training, 4 for cognitive stimulation, and 1 for multicomponent interventions. Most reviews had low or critically low quality.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The prevailing evidence supports cognitive training. Continued research into cognitive stimulation and multicomponent protocols is encouraged. Longer follow-ups are important for identifying combined and clinically significant results. Rigorous risk of bias and quality assessment is necessary to enhance the evidence base.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47673,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"Article 100538"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11770512/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1697260024001030","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

With increasing global life expectancy, cognitive interventions hold promise in mitigating cognitive decline and fostering healthy aging. Despite the demand for evidence-based interventions, there have been few attempts to summarize existing evidence. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of unimodal and multimodal cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy older adults.

Method

Systematic meta-review, selecting articles from four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Quality assessment carried out with AMSTAR2. Findings were summarized and discussed narratively.

Results

Thirty-nine articles were included, with 21 meta-analyses and 18 qualitative systematic reviews. The total number of reviews was 38 for cognitive training, 4 for cognitive stimulation, and 1 for multicomponent interventions. Most reviews had low or critically low quality.

Conclusions

The prevailing evidence supports cognitive training. Continued research into cognitive stimulation and multicomponent protocols is encouraged. Longer follow-ups are important for identifying combined and clinically significant results. Rigorous risk of bias and quality assessment is necessary to enhance the evidence base.

查看原文本刊更多论文

健康老年人的认知干预：一项系统的meta综述。

随着全球预期寿命的增加，认知干预有望减轻认知能力下降和促进健康老龄化。尽管需要以证据为基础的干预措施，但很少有人尝试总结现有证据。本研究旨在评估单模态和多模态认知干预对认知健康老年人的有效性和可行性。方法：系统荟萃综述，选取PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和Cochrane Library四个数据库中的文章。用AMSTAR2进行质量评估。研究结果进行了总结和叙述讨论。结果：纳入39篇文章，21篇荟萃分析和18篇定性系统评价。回顾总数为认知训练38篇，认知刺激4篇，多组分干预1篇。大多数评论的质量都很低或非常低。结论：现有证据支持认知训练。鼓励继续研究认知刺激和多组分协议。更长时间的随访对于确定联合和临床显著的结果很重要。严格的偏倚风险和质量评估是加强证据基础的必要条件。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

10.70

自引率

5.70%

发文量

审稿时长

33 days

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology is dedicated to publishing manuscripts with a strong emphasis on both basic and applied research, encompassing experimental, clinical, and theoretical contributions that advance the fields of Clinical and Health Psychology. With a focus on four core domains—clinical psychology and psychotherapy, psychopathology, health psychology, and clinical neurosciences—the IJCHP seeks to provide a comprehensive platform for scholarly discourse and innovation. The journal accepts Original Articles (empirical studies) and Review Articles. Manuscripts submitted to IJCHP should be original and not previously published or under consideration elsewhere. All signing authors must unanimously agree on the submitted version of the manuscript. By submitting their work, authors agree to transfer their copyrights to the Journal for the duration of the editorial process.