Online Group–Based Dual-Task Training to Improve Cognitive Function of Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive training for older adults is crucial before cognitive impairment emerges. During periods of social distancing like the COVID-19 pandemic, cognitive stimuli are lacking. Online dual-task training is proposed as a solution to address these needs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the feasibility, acceptance, and potential effects of online group-based dual-task training as an intervention for enhancing cognitive function among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: A randomized controlled feasibility study was conducted with 76 participants in Hong Kong, randomly assigned to the intervention and attention control groups in a ratio of 2:1 (n=50, 66% and n=26, 34%, respectively). The intervention group underwent 60-minute online dual-task training sessions twice a week for 12 weeks, incorporating cognitive components (upper limb and finger movement, arithmetic operation, and verbal fluency) and physical components (chair-based exercises) developed through a co-design approach. The attention control group received online health talks. Outcomes related to feasibility and acceptance included class attendance and self-reported satisfaction. Main outcomes related to potential effects included the Memory Inventory in Chinese and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5 Minutes (Hong Kong Version) at baseline, 6 weeks (midintervention), 12 weeks (postintervention) and 18 weeks (follow-up). Descriptive statistics and linear mixed effects models were used. Effect size was described with Cohen d. Qualitative feedback was collected from 12 informants and analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: About 72% (36/50) of the participants in the intervention group and 62% (16/26) in the control group attended over 75% of the classes. In total, 44 (88%) participants from the intervention group provided acceptance feedback; 82% (36/44) were satisfied and 84% (37/44) would recommend the training to others. Improvement in the Memory Inventory in Chinese score in the intervention group was observed at midintervention, postintervention, and follow-up, with a medium-to-large effect size (d=0.65, 0.43 and 0.85, respectively). Adjusting for baseline values, the between-group differences in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5 Minutes (Hong Kong Version) score attained a small-to-medium effect size at midintervention (d=0.34) and postintervention (d=0.23). Qualitative feedback highlighted the timesaving and convenient aspects of online dual-task training, with participants finding the sessions challenging and enjoyable, and reporting benefits across cognitive, physical, and psychosocial domains. However, a preference for traditional in-person training was noted among the older adults despite the advantages of online training. CONCLUSIONS: Online dual-task training is a feasible intervention accepted by the older adults, with potential benefits in cognitive abilities. Online training may complement in-person sessions. Further investigation in a full-scale randomized controlled trial is warranted to comprehensively explore its effects and address areas for improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05573646; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05573646.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".