Interventions to Improve Cognitive Outcomes in Older Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury and Association Between Social Determinants of Health and Intervention Effectiveness: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.8 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Canadian Geriatrics Journal Pub Date : 2025-12-03 eCollection Date: 2025-12-01 DOI:10.5770/cgj.28.868
Yu Qing Huang, Harneet Hothi, Sophie Weiss, Peter Hoang, Jessie McGowan, Nathalie Bier, Sharon Elizabeth Straus, Jennifer Ann Watt
{"title":"Interventions to Improve Cognitive Outcomes in Older Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury and Association Between Social Determinants of Health and Intervention Effectiveness: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Yu Qing Huang, Harneet Hothi, Sophie Weiss, Peter Hoang, Jessie McGowan, Nathalie Bier, Sharon Elizabeth Straus, Jennifer Ann Watt","doi":"10.5770/cgj.28.868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>At least one million Canadians are at risk of experiencing a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in later life, which can lead to cognitive decline. We identified interventions studied to improve cognitive outcomes in older adults with TBI, and examined how social determinants of health (SDoH) may influence their effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We followed JBI guidance and searched five electronic databases from inception until March 2023 for studies evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness, and safety of interventions being studied to improve cognitive outcomes in older adults with TBI. We abstracted SDoH following the PROGRESS-Plus framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 20 studies and 44,462 predominantly men/male (65%) participants with a mean age of 65.9 years; studies reported 51 cognitive outcomes. Three studies reported on race or ethnicity, eight studies reported on education, and no studies differentiated gender from sex. No studies reported on the association between SDoH and intervention effectiveness. We did not identify any economic evaluations. We classified 10 interventions into four categories: non-pharmacologic cognitive strategies (number of studies [n]=16), medications (n=1), non-invasive procedures (n=2), and invasive procedures (n=1). Invasive procedures and non-pharmacologic cognitive strategies had a statistically significant positive effect on cognitive measures in one and seven studies, respectively. Non-invasive procedures (n=2) did not have significant cognitive effects. Use of hypnotics (benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines) was significantly associated with a shorter time to incident dementia in one study.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-pharmacologic cognitive strategies were the most-studied interventions for improving cognitive outcomes in older adults with TBI. Future research should better integrate a health equity lens and standardize outcome measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":56182,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Geriatrics Journal","volume":"28 4","pages":"382-395"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12646695/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Geriatrics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5770/cgj.28.868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: At least one million Canadians are at risk of experiencing a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in later life, which can lead to cognitive decline. We identified interventions studied to improve cognitive outcomes in older adults with TBI, and examined how social determinants of health (SDoH) may influence their effectiveness.

Methods: We followed JBI guidance and searched five electronic databases from inception until March 2023 for studies evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness, and safety of interventions being studied to improve cognitive outcomes in older adults with TBI. We abstracted SDoH following the PROGRESS-Plus framework.

Results: We included 20 studies and 44,462 predominantly men/male (65%) participants with a mean age of 65.9 years; studies reported 51 cognitive outcomes. Three studies reported on race or ethnicity, eight studies reported on education, and no studies differentiated gender from sex. No studies reported on the association between SDoH and intervention effectiveness. We did not identify any economic evaluations. We classified 10 interventions into four categories: non-pharmacologic cognitive strategies (number of studies [n]=16), medications (n=1), non-invasive procedures (n=2), and invasive procedures (n=1). Invasive procedures and non-pharmacologic cognitive strategies had a statistically significant positive effect on cognitive measures in one and seven studies, respectively. Non-invasive procedures (n=2) did not have significant cognitive effects. Use of hypnotics (benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines) was significantly associated with a shorter time to incident dementia in one study.

Conclusion: Non-pharmacologic cognitive strategies were the most-studied interventions for improving cognitive outcomes in older adults with TBI. Future research should better integrate a health equity lens and standardize outcome measurement.

改善老年外伤性脑损伤患者认知结局的干预措施以及健康社会决定因素与干预效果之间的关系:一项范围综述
背景:至少有一百万加拿大人在以后的生活中有经历创伤性脑损伤(TBI)的风险,这可能导致认知能力下降。我们确定了改善老年TBI患者认知结果的干预措施,并研究了健康的社会决定因素(SDoH)如何影响其有效性。方法:我们遵循JBI指南,检索了5个电子数据库,从成立到2023年3月,评估了正在研究的干预措施的临床、成本效益和安全性,以改善老年TBI患者的认知结局。我们按照PROGRESS-Plus框架抽象了SDoH。结果:我们纳入了20项研究和44,462名参与者,主要是男性/男性(65%),平均年龄为65.9岁;研究报告了51项认知结果。三项研究报告了种族或民族,八项研究报告了教育,没有研究区分性别和性。没有关于SDoH与干预效果之间关系的研究报道。我们没有进行任何经济评估。我们将10种干预措施分为四类:非药物认知策略(研究数量[n]=16)、药物治疗(n=1)、非侵入性治疗(n=2)和侵入性治疗(n=1)。在一项和七项研究中,侵入性手术和非药物认知策略分别对认知测量有统计学上显著的积极影响。非侵入性手术(n=2)没有显著的认知影响。在一项研究中,催眠药物(苯二氮卓类药物和非苯二氮卓类药物)的使用与较短的痴呆发生时间显著相关。结论:非药物认知策略是改善老年TBI患者认知结局研究最多的干预措施。未来的研究应更好地整合健康公平视角,并使结果测量标准化。
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
Canadian Geriatrics Journal
Canadian Geriatrics Journal Nursing-Gerontology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Canadian Geriatrics Journal (CGJ) is a peer-reviewed publication that is a home for innovative aging research of a high quality aimed at improving the health and the care provided to older persons residing in Canada and outside our borders. While we gratefully accept submissions from researchers outside our country, we are committed to encouraging aging research by Canadians. The CGJ is targeted to family physicians with training or an interest in the care of older persons, specialists in geriatric medicine, geriatric psychiatrists, and members of other health disciplines with a focus on gerontology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书