4.5 Article

Speed of processing training protects self-rated health in older adults: enduring effects observed in the multi-site ACTIVE randomized controlled trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 470-478

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610209991281

关键词

randomized controlled trial; cognitive training; self-rated health; memory; reasoning; speed of processing

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NR04507]
  2. Indiana University School of Medicine [NR04508]
  3. Johns Hopkins University [AG14260]
  4. New England Research Institutes [AG14282]
  5. Pennsylvania State University [AG14263]
  6. University of Alabama at Birmingham [AG14289]
  7. University of Florida [AG014276]
  8. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service [HFP 04-149]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We evaluated the effects of cognitive training on self-rated health at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years post-baseline. Methods: In the ACTIVE (Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly) randomized controlled trial, 2,802 older adults (>= 65 years) were randomly assigned to memory, reasoning, speed of processing, or no-contact control intervention groups. Complete data were available for 1,804 (64%) of the 2,802 participants at five years. A propensity score model was adjusted for attrition bias. The self-rated health question was coded using the Diehr et al. (2001) transformation (E = 95/VG = 90/G = 80/F = 30/P = 15), and analyzed with change-score regression models. Results: The speed of processing (vs. no-contact control) group had statistically significant improvements (or protective effects) on changes in self-rated health at the 2, 3 and 5 year follow-ups. The 5-year improvement was 2.8 points (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in the memory or reasoning groups at any time. Conclusion: The speed of processing intervention significantly protected self-rated health in ACTIVE, with the average benefit equivalent to half the difference between excellent vs. very good health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据