4.0 Article

Designing studies on the effectiveness of physical training in patients with cognitive impairment

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00391-008-0529-8

关键词

physical training; Dementia Assessment Methods study design

资金

  1. Landesstiftung Baden-Wurttemberg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The literature provides conflicting results on the effectiveness of physical training in cognitively impaired older individuals. Cognitive impairment has been shown to be a negative predictor of rehabilitation outcome in these persons. However, the evidence on which this discussion is based is scarce. The methodology used in previous studies shows substantial shortcomings. The presented study protocol documents the methodology of one of the largest intervention studies worldwide in this research field with a standardized specific training program in cognitively impaired subjects including short- and long-term follow-up examinations. The selected sensitive evaluation tools for motor, cognitive and emotional status have all been validated for use in older persons. Most of these tests have been validated in cognitively impaired persons. In contrast to most previously published RCTs only study participants within a comparable level of cognitive impairment will be included in the study. The primary aim of the study is to evaluate a specific training program to improve motor performance (strength and functional performance) in persons with cognitive impairment. Secondary study endpoints include the reduction of falls, improvement of cognitive as well as psychological status and the documentation of physical activity. The training program is based on previous successful intervention studies of the research group, was complemented and modified with respect to specific deficits of cognitively impaired persons and focuses on motor improvements. The article gives a rationale for interventions using physical training and study methodology in persons with dementia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据