A nurse‐led positive psychological intervention among elderly community‐dwelling adults with mild cognitive impairment and depression: A non‐randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and depression have a higher dementia conversion rate, which requires timely intervention. OBJECTIVES: A non-randomized controlled trial was conducted to explore the effect of a nurse-led positive psychological intervention (PPI) in relieving depression and promoting cognition in this population. METHODS: A total of 70 older adults were enrolled, with 35 each in the intervention and control groups. The control group received one-to-one health education, and the intervention group received a 40- to 60-minute PPI for eight successive weeks. RESULTS: During the intervention, most participants reached the standard of active participation, and 2.86% continued to complete homework every day during follow-up. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score in the intervention group was significantly lower than that in the control group at the end of intervention (t = -3.64, p < 0.05) and at 3-month follow-up (t = -4.48, p < 0.05). Interaction effects of time and group on PHQ-9 scores (F = 8.11, p < 0.001), with significant differences between the groups in scores (F = 9.11, p < 0.05) and times (F = 23.58, p < 0.05) was observed. In the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale, the intervention group had significantly higher scores than controls at the end of intervention (t = 7.28, p < 0.05) and 3-month follow-up (t = 8.01, p < 0.05). Cognition in the two groups was significantly affected by intergroup effects (F = 42.80, p < 0.001), interaction effects (F = 30.38, p < 0.001), and time effects (F = 33.67, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the effects tended to decrease in follow-up, the nurse-led PPI was feasible and valid in relieving depression and promoting cognition among older participants with MCI and depression. The present findings warrant further exploration. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A nurse-led positive psychological intervention was applicable among elderly MCI adults with depression and effective in relieving depression and promoting cognition.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".