4.0 Article

Improving outcomes for people with mild cognitive impairment: An Australian mixed-methods pilot study

Journal

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL ON AGEING
Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages E87-E94

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajag.12908

Keywords

aging; cognition; exercise

Funding

  1. Townsville HHS Study Education Research Trust Account [2018_09]
  2. Northern Queensland Primary Care Network [CON-S144]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of an innovative functional task exercise program to ameliorate mild cognitive impairment. Approximately 80% of the participants completed the program, with clinical improvements shown in several cognitive and functional measures. Qualitative findings indicated that the program was positively viewed by participants and caregivers.
Objective This pilot study tested the feasibility and acceptability of an innovative functional task exercise program to ameliorate mild cognitive impairment. Methods The functional task exercise program was trialled on community-dwelling adults aged 60 years or older. The 10-week program was conducted in regional Australia and evaluated for acceptability and feasibility. Outcomes were assessed pre- and post- intervention and at three-month follow-up. Structured interviews were conducted with caregivers and participants at the end of the program. Results Acceptability was demonstrated, with approximately 80% of the 23 participants completing the program. Clinical improvements were demonstrated in several cognitive and functional measures using an uncontrolled pre-post test design. Qualitative findings suggest feasibility as the program was viewed positively by participants and caregivers. Conclusions The functional exercise program was acceptable, was feasible and improved outcomes in an Australian context. Research is urgently needed to identify and treat people with mild cognitive impairment living in the community.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available