The Effect of Cognitive Stimulation on Nursing Home Elders: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper describes the effectiveness of cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) on cognition and depressive symptoms in older adults in nursing homes (NHs). DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial, carried out from 2012 to 2013, included 56 residents from four NHs, 36 women and 20 men (randomized into experimental and control groups). Eight participants dropped out. METHODS: Participants of the experimental group underwent 14 CST sessions (7 weeks) in groups of six to eight older adults, and participants of the control group received usual care. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Geriatric Depression Scale-15, and the Barthel Index of activities of daily living (ADLs) were administered at baseline and postintervention. FINDINGS: Repeated measures revealed that CST increased cognition (F = 8.581; p = .005; partial η squared = 0.157; power = 0.82). There were no statistically significant differences in depressive symptoms (F = 1.090; p = .302). Baseline level of ADLs did not affect the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CST had significantly improved cognition, explaining the 15.7% variability, but there was no statistical evidence of its effectiveness on depressive symptoms. This improvement was not affected by the baseline level of dependence-independence in ADLs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CST offers a range of activities, providing general stimulation for thinking, concentration, and memory, usually in a social setting. These results will support implementation of CST in NHs. In addition to the impact on elderly independence and autonomy, CST may also have an economic impact by reducing the direct costs of the impact of elders' cognitive frailty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".