In person versus remote cognitive rehabilitation in patients with subjective cognitive decline or neurocognitive disorders: what factors drive patient's preference?
cognitive rehabilitation
cognitive reserve
lifestyle
neurocognitive disorder
telerehabilitation
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
24
07
2023
accepted:
20
09
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
23
10
2023
entrez:
23
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To date, there is still a lack of consensus for identifying the ideal candidate for cognitive telerehabilitation (TR). The main goal of the present study is to identify the factors associated to the preference for either TR or in-person cognitive training (CT) programs in older adults at risk of dementia or with early cognitive impairment. A sample of 56 participants with subjective cognitive decline or neurocognitive disorders eligible for CT were enrolled at the Dementia Research Center and Neurorehabilitation Unit of IRCCS Mondino Foundation. All individuals underwent a baseline assessment to capture their complete profile, including cognitive reserve and lifestyle habits, sociodemographic characteristics, cognitive functioning, and mental health. Patients were then asked their preference for TR or in-person CT, before being randomized to either treatment as per protocol procedures. Statistical analyses included explorative descriptive approach, logistic regression, and non-parametric models to explore the overall contribution of each variable. The two (TR and in-person) preference groups were similar for cognitive functioning and mental health status. Socio-demographic and lifestyle profiles seem to be the most important factors to influence the preference in terms of the area under the curve (AUC) of the models. The two preference groups differed in terms of socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., level of technological skills, age, and distance from the clinic). Furthermore, participants who selected the TR modality of CT had significantly higher levels of cognitive reserve and adopted more protective lifestyle habits (e.g., regular physical activity, Mediterranean diet) when compared to those who preferred in-person CT. These findings highlight that the preference to receive CT delivered by TR or in person is a complex issue and is influenced by a variety of factors, mostly related to lifestyle habits and sociodemographic characteristics. Availability of profiles of patients that may be more attracted to one or the other modality of TR may help promote shared decision-making to enhance patient experience and outcomes.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
To date, there is still a lack of consensus for identifying the ideal candidate for cognitive telerehabilitation (TR). The main goal of the present study is to identify the factors associated to the preference for either TR or in-person cognitive training (CT) programs in older adults at risk of dementia or with early cognitive impairment.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A sample of 56 participants with subjective cognitive decline or neurocognitive disorders eligible for CT were enrolled at the Dementia Research Center and Neurorehabilitation Unit of IRCCS Mondino Foundation. All individuals underwent a baseline assessment to capture their complete profile, including cognitive reserve and lifestyle habits, sociodemographic characteristics, cognitive functioning, and mental health. Patients were then asked their preference for TR or in-person CT, before being randomized to either treatment as per protocol procedures. Statistical analyses included explorative descriptive approach, logistic regression, and non-parametric models to explore the overall contribution of each variable.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The two (TR and in-person) preference groups were similar for cognitive functioning and mental health status. Socio-demographic and lifestyle profiles seem to be the most important factors to influence the preference in terms of the area under the curve (AUC) of the models. The two preference groups differed in terms of socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., level of technological skills, age, and distance from the clinic). Furthermore, participants who selected the TR modality of CT had significantly higher levels of cognitive reserve and adopted more protective lifestyle habits (e.g., regular physical activity, Mediterranean diet) when compared to those who preferred in-person CT.
Discussion
UNASSIGNED
These findings highlight that the preference to receive CT delivered by TR or in person is a complex issue and is influenced by a variety of factors, mostly related to lifestyle habits and sociodemographic characteristics. Availability of profiles of patients that may be more attracted to one or the other modality of TR may help promote shared decision-making to enhance patient experience and outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37868592
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266314
pmc: PMC10586873
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1266314Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Bernini, Ballante, Fassio, Panzarasa, Quaglini, Riccietti, Costa, Cappa, Tassorelli, Vecchi and Bottiroli.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Références
Eur Neurol. 1996;36(6):378-84
pubmed: 8954307
Digit Health. 2022 Nov 16;8:20552076221139693
pubmed: 36420317
Psychol Med. 2006 Apr;36(4):441-54
pubmed: 16207391
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Sep;14(9):926-944
pubmed: 26213339
Geriatr Nurs. 2020 Jul - Aug;41(4):463-467
pubmed: 32067831
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021 Jun;33(6):1567-1575
pubmed: 32895890
Adv Gerontol. 2003;11:7-18
pubmed: 12820516
Psychol Aging. 2001 Dec;16(4):564-579
pubmed: 11766912
Front Neurol. 2019 Nov 19;10:1206
pubmed: 31824398
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Feb;39(4):407-417
pubmed: 26505323
Sci Rep. 2023 Feb 7;13(1):2175
pubmed: 36750612
Ital J Neurol Sci. 1996 Aug;17(4):305-9
pubmed: 8915764
Ageing Res Rev. 2011 Apr;10(2):285-96
pubmed: 21130185
Alzheimers Dement. 2014 Nov;10(6):844-52
pubmed: 24798886
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Sep 08;16(1):315
pubmed: 27608620
Neurol Sci. 2015 Feb;36(2):209-14
pubmed: 25139107
J Telemed Telecare. 2019 Feb;25(2):67-79
pubmed: 29117794
Neurobiol Aging. 2009 Jul;30(7):1114-24
pubmed: 18053618
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1997 Dec;19(6):795-809
pubmed: 9524875
PLoS Med. 2017 Mar 21;14(3):e1002259
pubmed: 28323829
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Mar 28;19(7):
pubmed: 35409683
Neurobiol Aging. 2023 Apr;124:100-103
pubmed: 36653245
Annu Rev Public Health. 2022 Apr 5;43:439-459
pubmed: 34910580
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1025-36
pubmed: 9817120
Hum Factors. 2003 Summer;45(2):234-51
pubmed: 14529196
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 17;17(14):
pubmed: 32708861
Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 30;11:563375
pubmed: 33101176
Front Neurol. 2021 Dec 23;12:752830
pubmed: 35002919
Front Neurol. 2021 Jan 14;11:618330
pubmed: 33519699
Front Psychol. 2020 Apr 09;11:648
pubmed: 32373018
Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 1;174(4):329-340
pubmed: 27838936
Alzheimers Dement. 2011 May;7(3):257-62
pubmed: 21514247
Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2008;44(2):125-34
pubmed: 18660562
Front Neurol. 2021 Jan 14;11:623933
pubmed: 33519704
Neurol Sci. 2002 Mar;22(6):443-7
pubmed: 11976975
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2012 Jun;24(3):218-26
pubmed: 21691143
Psychol Med. 2007 Jul;37(7):1015-25
pubmed: 17112402
Clin Interv Aging. 2014 Sep 24;9:1605-11
pubmed: 25284993
Br J Psychiatry. 1982 Jun;140:566-72
pubmed: 7104545
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010 Feb;18(2):117-27
pubmed: 20104068
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022 Jan;34(1):73-83
pubmed: 34156651
Ital J Neurol Sci. 1987 Dec;Suppl 8:1-120
pubmed: 3330072
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;33(1):167-175
pubmed: 28247500
Psychol Aging. 2001 Mar;16(1):110-27
pubmed: 11302360
Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2021 Feb 05;7:2333721421993747
pubmed: 33614833
J Pers Med. 2021 May 18;11(5):
pubmed: 34069980
Alzheimers Dement. 2009 Mar;5(2):154-6
pubmed: 19328449
NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;44(4):555-567
pubmed: 31256092
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 25;16(1):425
pubmed: 27887597
J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;72(3):717-731
pubmed: 31640092
Prev Med. 2013 Sep;57(3):168-72
pubmed: 23707812
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2013 Aug 07;5(4):35
pubmed: 23924584
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2012 Jul-Sep;26(3):246-53
pubmed: 21986341
Int Psychogeriatr. 2013 May;25(5):825-31
pubmed: 23414646
Neuropsychol Rev. 2017 Sep;27(3):245-257
pubmed: 28271346
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019 Aug 21;264:1755-1756
pubmed: 31438328
Neuropsychologia. 2009 Aug;47(10):2015-28
pubmed: 19467352
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 1;22(6):e17253
pubmed: 32442136
Psychol Aging. 2006 Jun;21(2):333-52
pubmed: 16768579
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017 Jul 21;4(2):e7
pubmed: 28733271
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Jul;115:64-72
pubmed: 29779721
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Apr;67(4):414-22
pubmed: 20368517
Neurol Sci. 2005 Jun;26(2):108-16
pubmed: 15995827