A self-guided e-learning program improves metamemory outcomes in healthy older adults: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Aging brings memory changes that can be concerning for some older adults. Whereas in-person memory interventions can positively impact knowledge, mental health, and behavioural outcomes, self-guided e-learning programs may offer scalable and accessible alternatives to in-person programming. The current study aimed to evaluate efficacy of an e-learning program compared to no treatment. METHOD: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03602768). As part of a larger, multi-arm, controlled trial, healthy older adults (ages 60-84, 71% female) were randomized into an intervention or a delayed-start control condition. Data collection personnel were masked to participant grouping. Outcome measures were completed through telephone interviews and online questionnaires at baseline, immediate post-intervention, and 6- to 8-week follow-up. RESULTS: Among 115 analyzed participants, there were larger improvements over time in memory knowledge, memory strategy acquisition and daily use, and self-reported memory satisfaction and ability in the group that completed the intervention than in the control group. There was no interaction effect for health-promoting behaviors. Intention-to-treat analyses showed attenuated but largely similar findings. CONCLUSION: This self-guided e-learning memory program demonstrated similar clinical outcomes provided by in-person, facilitator-led programs. It may serve as an effective first-line treatment for older adults presenting with memory concerns in clinical settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".