Cited by 95Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive Abilities and Testing

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Healthy Brain Ageing Cognitive Training Program: Effects on Memory, Mood, and Sleep

Diamond, Keri, Mowszowski, Loren, Cockayne, Nicole, Norrie, Louisa, Paradise, Matthew, Hermens, Daniel F., Lewis, Simon J.G., Hickie, Ian B. +1 more·2015·Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease

Abstract

Background: With the rise in the ageing population and absence of a cure for dementia, cost-effective prevention strategies for those ‘at risk’ of dementia including those with depression and/or mild cognitive impairment are urgently required. Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy of a multifaceted Healthy Brain Ageing Cognitive Training (HBA-CT) program for older adults ‘at risk’ of dementia. Methods: Using a single-blinded design, 64 participants (mean age = 66.5 years, SD = 8.6) were randomized to an immediate treatment (HBA-CT) or treatment-as-usual control arm. The HBA-CT intervention was conducted twice-weekly for seven weeks and comprised group-based psychoeducation about cognitive strategies and modifiable lifestyle factors pertaining to healthy brain ageing, and computerized cognitive training. Results: In comparison to the treatment-as-usual control arm, the HBA-CT program was associated with improvements in verbal memory (p = 0.03), self-reported memory (p = 0.03), mood (p = 0.01), and sleep (p = 0.01). While the improvements in memory (p = 0.03) and sleep (p = 0.02) remained after controlling for improvements in mood, only a trend in verbal memory improvement was apparent after controlling for sleep. Conclusion: The HBA-CT program improves cognitive, mood, and sleep functions in older adults ‘at risk’ of dementia, and therefore offers promise as a secondary prevention strategy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/jad-142061

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A total of 10 research groups described psychoeducational interventions in individuals with MCI in addition to cognitive rehabilitation, cognitive training, mindfulness-based stress reduction, behavioral activation, or enriched by a recovery model approach.

    “A total of 10 research groups described psychoeducational interventions in addition to cognitive rehabilitation [38, 50], cognitive training [52, 53, 59, 60, 65], mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) [46, 47, 57, 58], behavioral activation [44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 54], or enriched by a recovery model approach [67]”
  • Immediately post-interventional assessments in smaller randomized controlled (n = 64) and non-randomized waiting-list controlled (n = 40) studies described significant improvements in depressive symptoms (p < 0.01; p = 0.01), subjective memory functioning (p = 0.03), and sleep quality (p = 0.01) in the intervention group as compared to a control group.

    “Immediately post-interventional assessments in smaller randomized controlled (n = 64 [65]) and non-randomized waiting-list controlled (n = 40 [38]) studies, described significant improvements in depressive symptoms (p < 0.01 [38]; p = 0.01 [65]), subjective memory functioning (p = 0.03 [65]), and sleep quality (p = 0.01 [65]) in the intervention group as compared to a control group.”
  • Although psychoeducational interventional studies with small sample sizes detected some positive immediate post-interventional therapeutic effects on well-being (n = 16) and mood (n = 64; n = 40), this review underlines that the majority of existing evidence from randomized controlled and randomized non-controlled trials with mostly large cohorts and longitudinal follow-ups, ranging from 3 to 24

    “Although psychoeducational interventional studies with small sample sizes detected some positive immediate post-interventional therapeutic effects on well-being (n = 16 [67]) and mood (n = 64 [65]; n = 40 [38]), this review underlines that the majority of existing evidence from randomized controlled”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diamond, K., Mowszowski, L., Cockayne, N., Norrie, L., Paradise, M., Hermens, D. F., Lewis, S. J. G., Hickie, I. B., & Naismith, S. L.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Naismith, Sharon L.
Venue
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
Published
2015-02-19
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
1181-1191
ISSN
  • 1387-2877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-8908
OpenAlex
W2135729680
Cited by
95
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Cilag
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
cognitive training
MeSH terms
Affect, Aged, Aging, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Sleep, Verbal Learning, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome

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