4.5 Review

Computer-Based Training Programs for Older People with Mild Cognitive Impairment and/or Dementia

期刊

FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00262

关键词

cognitive impairment; dementia; computer programs; efficacy; intervention; older adults

资金

  1. project Excellence at the Faculty of Informatics and Management of the University of Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, due to the demographic trends, the number of aging population groups is dramatically rising, especially in developed countries. This trend causes serious economic and social issues, but also an increase of aging disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia in older population groups. MCI and dementia are connected with deterioration of cognitive functions. The aim of this mini review article is therefore to explore whether computer-based training programs might be an effective intervention tool for older people with MCI and/or dementia or not. The methods include a literature search in the world's acknowledged databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, MEDLINE and Springer, and consequently, evaluation of the findings of the relevant studies. The findings from the selected studies are quite neutral with respect to the efficacy of the computer assisted intervention programs on the improvement of basic cognitive functions. On the one hand, they suggest that the computer-based training interventions might generate some positive effects on patients with MCI and/or dementia, such as the improvement of learning and short-term memory, as well as behavioral symptoms. On the other hand, these training interventions seem to be shortterm, with small sample sizes and their efficacy was proved only in the half of the detected studies. Therefore more longitudinal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to prove the efficacy of the computer-based training programs among older individuals with MCI and/or 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

4.5
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