4.7 Article

Mobile device use and the cognitive function and depressive symptoms of older adults living in residential care homes

期刊

BMC GERIATRICS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-1427-1

关键词

Mobile device; Cognitive function; Depressive symptoms; Older adults; Residential care homes

资金

  1. Suzhou Municipality Science and Technology Development Project [SYS201712]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background With the fast-paced aging and increasing digitalization of society, there has been a growing interest in the effect of mobile device use on cognitive function and depression in older adults. However, research examining this issue among older adults in residential care homes (RCHs) is scant. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of mobile device use on the cognitive function and depressive symptoms of older adults living in RCHs. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15). Results A total of 235 senior residents (aged 82.58 +/- 5.54) in four RCHs were surveyed. Users of mobile devices had a significantly higher total MoCA score (25.02 +/- 4.14) and a significantly lower GDS-15 score (3.28 +/- 2.74) than non-users (MoCA: 19.34 +/- 5.21, GDS-15: 4.69 +/- 2.90). Multivariate linear regression indicate that mobile device use is significantly associated with total MoCA score, six of the seven sub-scores (visuospatial abilities and execution functions, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation)(P < 0.05). Logistic regression showed that mobile device use was significantly associated with the level of depressive symptoms (OR = 0.458, 95%CI = 0.249-0.845). Conclusions Use of mobile devices has a significant association with the cognitive function and depressive symptoms of older adults living in RCHs, and thus should be encouraged as a measure to maintain and improve cognition and prevent depression.

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

4.7
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