| Literature DB >> 33968872 |
Azin Farzin1,2, Rahimah Ibrahim1,3, Zainal Madon3, Hamidon Basri4, Shervin Farzin5, Abbas Motalebizadeh6.
Abstract
Prospective Memory (PM) is a cognitive function affected by aging. PM is the memory of future intentions and is significantly involved in everyday life, especially among older adults. Nevertheless, there are a few studies focused on PM training among healthy older adults and these studies did not report the optimal duration of training regarding improving PM performance among older adults. The present study aimed to determine the effective duration for training PM performance among healthy older adults. The current study was a randomized, controlled, single-blind, within-participants crossover trial including a training program with a duration of 12 h. The sample of 25 older adults aged 55 to 74 years recruited from the active members of the University of the Third Age (U3A), Kuala Lumpur/Selangor, their family members, and friends. The study design ensured some participants would receive the training after baseline while others would wait for 6 weeks after the baseline before receiving the training. All participants were evaluated five times: at baseline, 6, 12, 16, and at 24 weeks post-baseline. Moreover, the training program ensured all participants were assessed after each training session. The minimum number of hours to achieve training effects for this multi-component training program was eight. Results supported the efficacy of the training program in improving PM performance among healthy older adults. Also, the optimal duration for the multicomponent training program on PM performance among healthy older adults was obtained. This trial is registered at isrctn.com (#ISRCTN57600070).Entities:
Keywords: multi-component; older adults; prospective memory; training duration; training program
Year: 2021 PMID: 33968872 PMCID: PMC8100224 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.594953
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Study cohort demographics and baseline measures.
| Number | 25 | 13 | 12 | |
| Age (Range) | 55–74 | 55–74 | 55–71 | |
| Mean age (years) | 63.32 ± 4.44 | 63.69 ± 4.83 | 62.92 ± 4.14 | t = 0.79 |
| Women/Men | 19/6 | 10/3 | 9/3 | χ 2 = 0.81 |
| Years of Education (Range) | 10–20 | 10–20 | 11–20 | |
| Mean years of education | 14.04 ± 3.07 | 14.69 ± 3.37 | 13.33 ± 2.67 | t = 0.61 |
| Cognitive State (Range) | 27–29 | 27–29 | 27–29 | |
| Mean Cognitive State | 27.68 ± 0.74 | 27.62 ± 0.76 | 27.75 ± 0.75 | t = 0.66 |
| Time-based PM | 0.77 ± 1.36 | 0.92 ± 1.08 | ||
| Event-based PM | 3.23 ± 1.64 | 2.33 ± 1.37 | ||
| Activity-based PM | 1.31 ± 0.94 | 1.17 ± 0.71 | ||
| PM | 28.85 ± 3.41 | 27.33 ± 2.93 | ||
| Total | 54.62 ± 6.00 | 50.92 ± 3.91 | ||
| IADL | 6.38 ± 0.65 | 6.08 ± 0.99 | ||
| GDS | 7.46 ± 1.33 | 5.75 ± 1.13 | ||
| GAS | 19.08 ± 2.66 | 19.8 ± 2.19 | ||
Figure 1Time-based PM performance change over time.
The VW game results for within-subject effects on time-based PM performance.
| 1st Sess. | 46.00 ± 21.26 | 00.54 ( | |||||
| 2nd Sess. | 75.00 ± 50.50 | 1.89 ( | |||||
| 3rd Sess. | 60.99 ± 31.24 | 4.66 ( | |||||
| 4th Sess. | 77.50 ± 21.94 | 1.12 ( | |||||
| 5th Sess. | 84.20 ± 22.62 | 2.26 ( | |||||
| 6th Sess. | 91.85 ± 11.59 |
Sess, Session; M, mean; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 2Event-based PM performance change over time.
The VW game results for within-subject effects on event-based PM performance.
| 1st Sess. | 23.32 ± 8.33 | 3.15 ( | |||||
| 2nd Sess. | 30.99 ± 19.91 | 6.90 ( | |||||
| 3rd Sess. | 48.88 ± 27.59 | 8.70 ( | |||||
| 4th Sess. | 68.99 ± 20.02 | 1.35 ( | |||||
| 5th Sess. | 76.26 ± 24.04 | 2.70 ( | |||||
| 6th Sess. | 85.61 ± 15.18 |