Non-Pharmacologic Interventions for Older Adults with Subjective Cognitive Decline: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Preliminary Recommendations
Open accessAbstract
In subjective cognitive decline (SCD), older adults present with concerns about self-perceived cognitive decline but are found to have clinically normal function. However, a significant proportion of those adults are subsequently found to develop mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's dementia or other neurocognitive disorder. In other cases, SCD may be associated with mood, personality, and physical health concerns. Regardless of etiology, adults with SCD may benefit from interventions that could enhance current function or slow incipient cognitive decline. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, is to examine the benefits of non-pharmacologic intervention (NPI) in persons with SCD. Inclusion criteria were studies of adults aged 55 + with SCD defined using published criteria, receiving NPI or any control condition, with cognitive, behavioural, or psychological outcomes in controlled trails. Published empirical studies were obtained through a standardized search of CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE with Full Text, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES, supplemented by a manual retrieval of relevant articles. Study quality and bias was determined using PEDro. Nine studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A wide range of study quality was observed. Overall, a small effect size was found on cognitive outcomes, greater for cognitive versus other intervention types. The available evidence suggests that NPI may benefit current cognitive function in persons with SCD. Recommendations are provided to improve future trials of NPI in SCD.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Literature indicates that cognitive restructuring may reduce subjective memory complaints, whereas memory training may improve objective memory function.
“Literature indicates that cognitive restructuring may reduce subjective memory complaints, whereas memory training may improve objective memory function [32, 33].”
From Psychotherapeutic interventions in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s dementia: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 76 · Cited by 145
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Jonker, C., Geerlings, M. I., & Schmand, B. (2000). Are memory complaints predictive for dementia? A review of clinical and population-based studies. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15 , 983-91.
- Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11 , 364-386. doi:10.1177/1094428106291059 · DOI · Paper page
- Wilson, K. Y. (2005). The effectiveness of memory training programs in improving the subjective memory characteristics of healthy older adults with memory complaints: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation .
- Authors
- and the Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I) Working Group, Smart, C. M., Karr, J. E., Areshenkoff, C. N., Rabin, L. A., Hudon, C., Gates, N., Ali, J. I., Arenaza-Urquijo, E. M., Buckley, R. F., Chetelat, G., Hampel, H., Jessen, F., Marchant, N. L., Sikkes, S. A. M., Tales, A., van der Flier, W. M., & Wesselman, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Victoria (CA)
- City University of New York (US)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Inserm (FR)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Cologne (DE)
- Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL)
- Swansea University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Smart, Colette M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neuropsychology Review
- Published
- 2017-03-07
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 245-257
- ISSN
- 1040-7308 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6660
- OpenAlex
- W2593974732
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.amsterdamumc.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuropsychology Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- DZNE Pub (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Alzheimer Society
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-IAIHU06, 10-IAIHU-06, ANR-10, ANR-10-IAHU-0006)
- AXA Research Fund (ANR-10-IAIHU-06)
- Université Pierre et Marie Curie
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Keywords
- subjective cognitive decline, non-pharmacological treatment, older adults, mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's dementia, cognitive function, behavioural outcomes, psychological outcomes, intervention effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Complementary Therapies, Behavior Therapy, Humans, Cognitive Dysfunction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
