↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Computerized cognitive stimulation and engagement programs in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: comparing feasibility, acceptability, and cognitive and psychosocial effects

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
Title
Computerized cognitive stimulation and engagement programs in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: comparing feasibility, acceptability, and cognitive and psychosocial effects
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s145769
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leila Djabelkhir, Ya-Huei Wu, Jean-Sébastien Vidal, Victoria Cristancho-Lacroix, Fabienne Marlats, Hermine Lenoir, Ariela Carno, Anne-Sophie Rigaud

Abstract

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is associated with a higher risk of dementia and is becoming a topic of interest for pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. With advances in technology, computer-based cognitive exercises are increasingly integrated into traditional cognitive interventions, such as cognitive training. Another type of cognitive intervention involving technology use is cognitive engagement, consisting of involving participants in highly motivational and mentally challenging activities, such as learning to use a form of new digital technology. This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a computerized cognitive stimulation (CCS) program and a computerized cognitive engagement (CCE) program, and then compared their effects in older adults with MCI. In this randomized study, data from 19 MCI patients were analyzed (n=9 in CCS and n=10 in CCE). The patients attended a group weekly session for a duration of 3 months. Assessments of cognitive and psychosocial variables were conducted at baseline (M0) and at the end of the programs (M3). All of the participants attended the 12 sessions and showed a high level of motivation. Attrition rate was very low (one dropout at M3 assessment). At M3, the CCS participants displayed a significant improvement in part B of the Trail Making Test (TMT-B; p=0.03) and self-esteem (p=0.005), while the CCE participants showed a significant improvement in part A of the Trail Making Test (TMT-A; p=0.007) and a higher level of technology acceptance (p=0.006). The two groups did not differ significantly (p>0.05) in cognitive and psychosocial changes after the intervention. However, medium effect sizes (Cohen's d=0.56; 95% CI =-0.43:1.55) were found on the free recall, favoring the CCS group, as well as on TMT-A (d=0.51; 95% CI =-0.48:1.49) and technology acceptance (d=-0.65; 95% CI =-1.64:0.34), favoring the CCE group. Both interventions were highly feasible and acceptable and allowed improvement in different aspects of cognitive and psychosocial functioning in MCI subjects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 89 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 10%
Neuroscience 16 6%
Computer Science 8 3%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 102 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#934
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,815
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#30
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.