MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414472186 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2025.051121

Interventions Used to Increase Participation Among Older Adults Experiencing Mild Cognitive Decline: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4414472186 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Ward, Kylie Wales, Laura Jolliffe, Julia Schmidt, Natasha A. Lannin, Caitlin Casson, Alyssa Turcott, Juan C. Ferrer, Emma Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCognitionOccupational therapyAffect (linguistics)Quality of life (healthcare)Activities of daily livingCognitive skillIndependence (probability theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Mild cognitive decline is more likely to affect older adults and often progresses to dementia. Occupational therapists play a key role in delivering interventions that can enhance or sustain participation in meaningful activities. OBJECTIVE: To examine occupational therapy interventions used with older adults experiencing mild cognitive decline and determine their effectiveness on participation outcomes. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Inclusion criteria were randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials published in English from inception to August 2024 that evaluated an intervention to address mild cognitive decline delivered or supervised by an occupational therapist. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2). Results were synthesized both narratively and using a meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Eleven articles described 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria. All involved cognitive training interventions using a remediation (seven studies) or compensation (one study) approach or both (two studies). Eight studies measured participation and were included in the meta-analysis. Results of the meta-analysis indicate that occupational therapy interventions are effective in enhancing participation of older adults with mild cognitive decline immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.504, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.194, 0.813]; I2 = 68%) and up to 6 mo later (SMD = 0.271, 95% CI [-0.090, 0.631]; I2 = 71%) but with considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational therapy-delivered interventions are effective for older adults with mild cognitive decline, although further evidence is needed for greater confidence. Plain-Language Summary: Mild cognitive decline is a deterioration in a person's thinking and memory that does not have a medical cause. Although it is more likely to affect older adults, it is not considered part of normal aging. However, it can occasionally progress to more severe forms of dementia. Staying active and independent is known to preserve quality of life among older adults with mild cognitive decline. Occupational therapists play a crucial role in supporting older adults in maintaining their independence and quality of life. This study examined different interventions used by occupational therapists to minimize the impact of mild cognitive decline. The authors found that a range of occupational therapy interventions can effectively enhance participation in meaningful activities; these benefits were observed immediately after treatment and up to 6 months later. However, more evidence is needed to understand the full impact of occupational therapy in this context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.012
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207