4.5 Article

Cognitive differences among depressed and non-depressed MCI participants: a project FRONTIER study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 377-382

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/gps.3835

Keywords

mild cognitive impairment; depression; learning and memory; cognition

Funding

  1. NIMHD NIH HHS [L60 MD001849] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Depression is the most commonly reported psychiatric symptom in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, more research is needed examining the impact of depression on cognitive functioning in MCI patients. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in cognitive functioning in a sample of community- based, depressed, and non-depressed MCI patients. Methods One hundred and five participants with MCI were included in this study. Participants were recruited from Project FRONTIER, a study of rural health. Depression was assessed via the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30), and cognition was measured using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. Results The results indicated that depressed MCI participants performed significantly worse than their non-depressed counterparts on several cognitive measures. MCI participants with depression scored significantly lower on immediate memory (t=3.4, p<0.01) and delayed memory (t=2.8, p<0.01) indices than their non-depressed counterparts. Conclusions The results of this study indicated that MCI participants with depression experienced greater deficits in cognitive functioning than their non-depressed counterparts. Depressed MCI participants exhibited greater deficits in both immediate and delayed memory. Thus, identifying and treating depression in individuals with MCI may improve memory and cognitive functioning. Copyright (c) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available