| Literature DB >> 35329218 |
Yu-Fang Lin1, Megan F Liu2, Mu-Hsing Ho3, Yen-Kuang Lin4, Yu-Ling Hsiao5, Ming-Hsu Wang6,7, Chia-Chi Chang2,7, Jed Montayre8.
Abstract
Early preventive strategies for improving cognitive function are crucial for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Cognitive training exercises may improve cognitive functioning. However, there was limited evidence from training programs that combined cognitive-specific and physical activities, particularly in using interactive video games as interventions. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effects of the interactive-video games on cognitive function, physical function, mood status and quality of life in community-dwelling people with MCI. A quasi-experimental study was undertaken. Participants in the intervention group received 60 min group-based training program once per week for 12 weeks. A generalised estimating equation (GEE) was used to examine the main effect, interactions and changes in outcomes over time. Sixteen participants completed the trial with eight in the intervention group and eight in the comparison group. The tolerable acceptance rate, perfect attendance rate, high satisfaction with the training content, and no injuries or falls demonstrated the feasibility of this program. The scores of cognitive function increased in both groups and the interaction between time and groups were significant over 12 weeks of training (p < 0.05). As the result, we determined that interactive-video games can be a safe, feasible, enjoyable intervention and user-friendly among people with MCI in community settings.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive dysfunction; computer-assisted instruction; feasibility studies; independent living; video games
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35329218 PMCID: PMC8954200 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063536
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Interactive-video games training program.
| Games | Session 1 | Session 2 | Session 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Domains | ||||
| Memory | Name: | Name: | Name: | |
| Visual reception | Name: | Name: | Name: | |
| Concentration | Name: | Name: | Name: | |
| Executive function | Name: | Name: | Name: | |
| Social interaction | Name: | Name: | Name: | |
ROM, range of motion; a Three levels of difficulty with single player; b Three levels of difficulty with mutiple players; c Two levels of difficulty with single player. (Supplementary Figure S1).
Description of the preliminary outcomes instruments.
| Name | Domains | Item | Measures and Scoring | Reliability | Validity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| SPMSQ [ | Orientation, working memory, and calculation [ | Total: 10 | Maximum score: 10 | Internal consistency: 0.98 [ | Correlates with the MMSE, |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| IADL [ | Shopping, transportation, meal preparation, ordinary housework, doing laundry, medications, phone use, and managing finances. | Total: 8 | Maximum score: 8 | Test-retest reliability: 0.93 [ | Correlates with the Physical Classification (PC) scale, the MSQ, |
| SFT [ | Test-retest reliability: | Good validity [ | |||
| Chair stand test | The lower-body strength | Total number of repetitions completed in 30 s. | Test-retest reliability: 0.89 | Correlates with 1 RM leg press strength, the criterion validity, | |
| Eight-foot TUG | Dynamic balance and agility | Recorded the time in seconds. | Test-retest reliability: 0.95 | Correlates with TUG, the concurrent validity, | |
| Chair sit and reach test | Hamstring flexibility | Number of CM from the tips of the middle fingers short of reaching to the top of the shoe (minus score), touched the toes (zero scores), or past the toes (plus score). | Test-retest reliability: 0.95 | Correlates with goniometer-measured hamstring flexibility, the criterion validity, | |
| 6MWT | Measuring cardiovascular endurance | The distance walked as quickly as possible for six minutes, without running or jogging. | Test-retest reliability: 0.94 | Correlates with modified Balke treadmill protocol, the criterion validity, | |
| Balance | |||||
| UPST [ | The static balance on the preferred leg. | Recorded the time in seconds with the eyes open. | ICC: 0.86. | Correlates with Tinetti Balance Subscale, the concurrent validity, | |
|
| |||||
| GDS-SF [ | Self-rating of symptoms of depression | Total: 15 “yes/no” questions. | Normal: 0–4 | Cronbach α: 0.89 [ | Correlates with the GDS long form, |
|
| |||||
| EQ5D-VAS [ | Rated current health status in a 20-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) | Imaginable health state: | Cronbach’s α of the Taiwanese version: 0.70 [ | Correlates with the SF-12 subscale, the concurrent validity, | |
| EQ5D-Utility | Mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression | Coded as three levels: | According to the Converted to a single summary utility score by TTO. | Cronbach’s α of the Taiwanese version: 0.51 [ | Correlates with the SF-12 subscale, the concurrent validity, |
SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire; IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale; MSQ, Mental Status Questionnaire; SFT, senior functional test; TUG, timed up and go test; 6MWT, 6-min walk test; UPST, timed unipedal stance test; GDS-SF, geriatric depression scale short form; EQ5D-VAS: the five domains of the Euroqol Health visual analogue scale (VAS); EQ-5D-Utility, the five domains of the Euroqol Health utility score. MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination. ICC: The intraclass correlation coefficient. TTO: The time trade-off. SF-12: Short-Form 12 Health Survey.
Figure 1Flow diagram.
Participant characteristics in demographic data of both groups (N = 16).
| Variables | Intervention Group ( | Comparison Group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| |||
| 79.75 | 77.75 | 0.597 | |
| 60~69 (y/o) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (12.5%) | |
| 70~79 (y/o) | 3 (37.5%) | 4 (50.0%) | |
| 80~89 (y/o) | 5 (62.5%) | 3 (37.5%) | |
|
| 1.000 | ||
| Male | 3 (37.5%) | 3 (37.5%) | |
| Female | 5 (62.5%) | 5 (62.5%) | |
|
| 0.608 | ||
| ≤Elementary school | 4 (50.0%) | 6 (75.0%) | |
| ≥Junior High School | 4 (50.0%) | 2 (25.0%) | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.282 | ||
| ≤1 | 1 (12.5%) | 4 (50.0%) | |
| ≥2 | 7 (87.5%) | 4 (50.0%) | |
|
| |||
| 6 (75.0%) | 3 (37.5%) | 0.315 | |
| 4 (50.0%) | 7 (87.5%) | 0.282 | |
|
| |||
| SPMSQ (M | 7.38 | 7.38 ± 0.92 | 0.860 |
|
| |||
| IADL (M | 7.25 ± 1.04 | 8.00 ± 0.00 | 0.027 |
| SFT | |||
| Chair Stand Test (rep) (M | 10.25 | 13.75 | 0.051 |
| 8-foot TUG (sec) (M | 16.71 | 7.65 ± 1.78 | 0.172 |
| Chair Sit and Reach Test (cm) (M | −1.04 | 8.06 ± 9.88 | 0.400 |
| 6MWT (m) (M | 292.76 ± 192.40 | 355.38 ± 90.45 | 0.600 |
| Balance | |||
| UPST (sec) (M | 4.60 ± 2.75 | 19.09 ± 18.36 | 0.059 |
|
| |||
| GDS-SF (M | 5.25 ± 2.77 | 2.75 ± 1.98 | 0.038 |
|
| |||
| EQ5D-VAS (M | 64.04 ± 28.24 | 68.88 ± 23.69 | 0.713 |
| EQ5D-Utility (M | 0.70 ± 0.22 | 0.89 ± 0.16 | 0.045 |
SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire; IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale; SFT, senior functional test; TUG, timed up and go test; 6MWT, 6-min walk test; UPST, timed unipedal stance test; GDS-SF, geriatric depression scale short form. EQ5D-VAS, the five domains of the Euroqol Health visual analogue scale (VAS). EQ-5D-Utility, the five domains of the Euroqol Health utility score. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the baseline differences due to non-normality of the data and small sample size categorical variables.
Figure 2The mean plot for SPMSQ score between the intervention group and comparison group. SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire. * p < 0.05. Interaction between group and time.
GEE Models between groups for cognitive function, physical function, mood status, and quality of life by group, time, and group-by-time interaction: Baseline to 12 weeks.
| Item | Group | Visit | Group | Time | Interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 4 | 8 | 12 |
|
|
| ||
| M | M ± SD | M ± SD | M ± SD | |||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| I | 7.38 ± 0.74 | 7.63 ± 1.06 | 7.88 ± 1.46 | 8.63 ± 1.06 | 0.030 | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| C | 7.38 ± 0.92 | 8.50 ± 1.07 | 8.25 ± 1.17 | 8.38 ± 1.41 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| I | 7.25 ± 1.04 | 7.63 ± 0.74 | 7.38 ± 1.41 | 7.13 ± 1.46 | 0.121 | 0.394 | 0.394 |
| C | 8.00 ± 0.00 | 7.75 ± 0.46 | 7.63 ± 0.74 | 7.75 ± 0.71 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Chair Stand Test | I | 10.25 ± 5.97 | 10.00 ± 5.76 | 10.00 ± 6.76 | 11.50 ± 6.23 | 0.065 | 0.019 | 0.090 |
| C | 13.75 ± 2.32 | 15.13 ± 2.42 | 15.13 ± 4.64 | 15.13 ± 2.10 | ||||
| 8-foot TUG (sec) | I | 16.71 ± 14.44 | 19.42 ± 19.98 | 26.19 ± 36.07 | 23.07 ± 29.40 | 0.379 | 0.274 | 0.374 |
| C | 7.65 ± 1.78 | 7.16 ± 1.96 | 7.97 ± 1.82 | 7.82 ± 1.88 | ||||
| Chair Sit and Reach Test (cm) | I | −1.04 ± 10.00 | 1.19 ± 8.34 | 1.06 ± 7.03 | −0.88 ± 7.77 | 0.701 | 0.024 | 0.863 |
| C | 8.06 ± 9.88 | 6.38 ± 9.68 | 5.14 ± 11.20 | 4.56 ± 10.78 | ||||
| 6MWT (m) | I | 292.76 ± 192.40 | 315.78 ± 207.00 | 289.85 ± 187.30 | 314.82 ± 201.91 | 0.129 | 0.922 | 0.488 |
| C | 355.38 ± 90.45 | 302.41 ± 131.76 | 350.44 ± 97.73 | 331.20 ± 120.57 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| UPST (sec) | I | 4.60 ± 2.75 | 6.14 ± 3.38 | 7.08 ± 4.74 | 7.21 ± 4.95 | 0.879 | 0.545 | 0.725 |
| C | 19.09 ± 18.36 | 34.93 ± 41.66 | 26.13 ± 28.39 | 38.85 ± 39.10 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| I | 5.25 ± 2.77 | 4.75 ± 3.28 | 4.25 ± 3.28 | 4.50 ± 3.85 | 0.233 | 0.611 | 0.420 |
| C | 2.75 ± 1.98 | 2.88 ± 2.17 | 2.00 ± 1.51 | 2.00 ± 2.88 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| I | 64.04 ± 28.24 | 76.01 ± 23.42 | 68.59 ± 18.41 | 63.25 ± 30.34 | 0.364 | 0.215 | 0.436 |
| C | 68.88 ± 23.69 | 70.75 ± 20.01 | 70.63 ± 17.50 | 67.38 ± 17.45 | ||||
|
| I | 0.70 ± 0.22 | 0.73 ± 0.24 | 0.82 ± 0.20 | 0.74 ± 0.33 | 0.823 | 0.555 | 0.552 |
| C | 0.89 ± 0.16 | 0.81 ± 0.16 | 0.75 ± 0.24 | 0.77 ± 0.14 | ||||
I, intervention group; C, comparison group; SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire; IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale; SFT, senior functional test; TUG, timed up and go test; 6MWT, 6-min walk test; UPST timed unipedal stance test; GDS-SF, geriatric depression scale short form. EQ5D-VAS: The five domains of the Euroqol Health visual analogue scale (VAS). EQ-5D-Utility: The five domains of the Euroqol Health utility score. We used GEE to examine the main effect between the intervention group and the comparison group, as well as the time effect within baseline, 4th week, 8th week, and 12th week on the response of cognitive function, physical function, mood status, and quality of life. We also allow an interaction for group and time. Group p refers to the difference in the mean value regardless of the time points between groups, time p refers to the difference in four time points regardless of groups.