Key result
Cognitive speed-of-processing training significantly improves everyday processing speed vs control in older heart failure patients.
Why the study?
Cognitive speed of processing training has not been examined among older adults with heart failure despite cognitive deficits posing serious problems in this population.
RCT (n=54)
Randomized
Yes
Effect estimate: partial η2 = 0.360
p-value: p=≤0.001
May benefit everyday function in older HF adults; leaves open translation to outcomes and needs larger trials.
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive deficits pose serious problems for older adults with heart failure (HF). Cognitive speed of processing training improves cognition among older adults but has not been examined among older adults with HF. METHOD: Data from the ACTIVE study were used to examine the effects of cognitive speed of processing training on cognitive and functional performance among older adults with HF. RESULTS: Of the 54 participants included in the analyses, 23 who were randomized to cognitive training performed significantly better on a composite of everyday speed of processing from pre- to post-training compared with 31 participants who were randomized to the control group, F(1, 51) = 28.67, p ≤ .001, [Formula: see text] = .360. DISCUSSION: Results indicate that speed of processing training may improve everyday cognitive performance among older adults with HF. Future studies should investigate the longitudinal effects of cognitive training with HF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ellis et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=54). Cognitive speed of processing training vs. No-contact control group was evaluated on Composite of everyday speed of processing (Useful Field of View [UFOV]) (partial η2 = 0.360, p=≤0.001). Cognitive speed of processing training significantly improved everyday speed of processing performance from pre- to post-training compared to a control group among older adults with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: