8 results
51 Feasibility of Remote Administration of a Modified UDSv3 Cognitive Battery
- Bonnie C Sachs, Stephen R Rapp, Sarah A Gaussoin, Iris Leng, Heather A. Shappell, Mark A Espeland, Eric Fischer, Lauren A. Latham, Benjamin J Williams, James Bateman, Maryjo Cleveland, Mia Yang, Samantha Rogers, Suzanne Craft
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 563-564
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Face-to-face administration is the “gold standard” for both research and clinical cognitive assessments. However, many factors may impede or prevent face-to-face assessments, including distance to clinic, limited mobility, eyesight, or transportation. The COVID19 pandemic further widened gaps in access to care and clinical research participation. Alternatives to face-to-face assessments may provide an opportunity to alleviate the burden caused by both the COVID-19 pandemic and longer standing social inequities. The objectives of this study were to develop and assess the feasibility of a telephone- and video-administered version of the Uniform Data Set (UDS) v3 cognitive batteries for use by NIH-funded Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) and other research programs.
Participants and Methods:Ninety-three individuals (M age: 72.8 years; education: 15.6 years; 72% female; 84% White) enrolled in our ADRC were included. Their most recent adjudicated cognitive status was normal cognition (N=44), MCI (N=35), mild dementia (N=11) or other (N=3). They completed portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the RAVLT, either by telephone or video-format within approximately 6 months (M:151 days) of their annual in-person visit, where they completed the same in-person cognitive assessments. Some measures were substituted (Oral Trails for TMT; Blind MoCA for MoCA) to allow for phone administration. Participants also answered questions about the pleasantness, difficulty level, and preference for administration mode. Cognitive testers provided ratings of perceived validity of the assessment. Participants’ cognitive status was adjudicated by a group of cognitive experts blinded to most recent inperson cognitive status.
Results:When results from video and phone modalities were combined, the remote assessments were rated as pleasant as the inperson assessment by 74% of participants. 75% rated the level of difficulty completing the remote cognitive assessment the same as the in-person testing. Overall perceived validity of the testing session, determined by cognitive assessors (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%), was good. There was generally good concordance between test scores obtained remotely and in-person (r = .3 -.8; p < .05), regardless of whether they were administered by phone or video, though individual test correlations differed slightly by mode. Substituted measures also generally correlated well, with the exception of TMT-A and OTMT-A (p > .05). Agreement between adjudicated cognitive status obtained remotely and cognitive status based on in-person data was generally high (78%), with slightly better concordance between video/in-person (82%) vs phone/in-person (76%).
Conclusions:This pilot study provided support for the use of telephone- and video-administered cognitive assessments using the UDSv3 among individuals with normal cognitive function and some degree of cognitive impairment. Participants found the experience similarly pleasant and no more difficult than inperson assessment. Test scores obtained remotely correlated well with those obtained in person, with some variability across individual tests. Adjudication of cognitive status did not differ significantly whether it was based on data obtained remotely or in-person. The study was limited by its’ small sample size, large test-retest window, and lack of randomization to test-modality order. Current efforts are underway to more fully validate this battery of tests for remote assessment. Funded by: P30 AG072947 & P30 AG049638-05S1
36 Lexical Frequency and Semantic Fluency Performances in Cognitively Normal APOEε4 Carriers
- Lauren Latham, Bonnie Sachs, James R Bateman, Mary Jo Cleveland, Samantha Rogers, Benjamin Williams, Mia Yang, Suzanne Craft
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 244-245
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
There is a pressing need for sensitive, non-invasive indicators of cognitive impairment in those at risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). One group at an increased risk for AD is APOEε4 carriers. One study found that cognitively normal APOEε4 carriers are less likely to produce low frequency (i.e., less common) words on semantic fluency tasks relative to non-carriers, but this finding has not yet been replicated. This study aims to replicate these findings within the Wake Forest ADRC clinical core population, and examine whether these findings extend to additional semantic fluency tasks.
Participants and Methods:This sample includes 221 APOEε4 non-carriers (165 females, 56 males; 190 White, 28 Black/African American, 3 Asian; Mage = 69.55) and 79 APOEε4 carriers (59 females, 20 males; 58 White, 20 Black/African American, 1 Asian; Mage = 65.52) who had been adjudicated as cognitively normal at baseline. Semantic fluency data for both the animal task and vegetable task was scored for total number of items as well as mean lexical frequency (attained via the SUBTLEXus database). Demographic variables and additional cognitive variables (MMSE, MoCA, AMNART scores) were also included from the participants’ baseline visit.
Results:APOEε4 carriers and non-carriers did not differ on years of education, AMNART scores, or gender (ps > 0.05). APOEε4 carriers were slightly younger and included more Black/African American participants (ps < 0.05). Stepwise linear regression was used to determine the variance in total fluency score and mean lexical frequency accounted for by APOEε4 status after including relevant demographic variables (age, sex, race, years of education, and AMNART score). As expected, demographic variables accounted for significant variance in total fluency score (p < 0.0001). Age accounted for significant variance in total fluency score for both the animal task (ß = -0.32, p <0.0001) and the vegetable task (ß = -0.29, p < 0.0001), but interestingly, not the lexical frequency of words produced. After accounting for demographic variables, APOEε4 status did not account for additional variance in lexical frequency for either fluency task (ps > 0.05). Interestingly, APOEε4 status was a significant predictor of total words for the vegetable semantic fluency task only (ß = 0.13, p = 0.01), resulting in a model that accounted for more variance (R2 = 0.25, F(6, 292) = 16.11, p < 0.0001) in total words than demographic variables alone (R2 = 0.23, F(5, 293) = 17.75, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions:Unsurprisingly, we found that age, AMNART, and education were significant predictors of total word fluency. One unexpected finding was that age did not predict the lexical frequency - that is - regardless of age, participants tended to retrieve words of the same lexical frequency, which stands in contrast to the notion that retrieval efficiency of infrequent words declines with age. With regard to APOEε4, we did not replicate existing work demonstrating differences in lexical frequency and semantic fluency tasks for ε4 carriers and non-carriers; possibly due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the sample.
Optimising motor development in the hospitalised infant with CHD: factors contributing to early motor challenges and recommendations for assessment and intervention
- Stefanie C. Rogers, Lauren Malik, Jennifer Fogel, Bridy Hamilton, Darlene Huisenga, Christina Lewis-Wolf, Dana Mieczkowski, Jennifer K. Peterson, Sarah Russell, Anne C. Schmelzer, Jodi Smith, Samantha C. Butler
-
- Journal:
- Cardiology in the Young / Volume 33 / Issue 10 / October 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 September 2023, pp. 1800-1812
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background:
Neurodevelopmental challenges are the most prevalent comorbidity associated with a diagnosis of critical CHD, and there is a high incidence of gross and fine motor delays noted in early infancy. The frequency of motor delays in hospitalised infants with critical CHD requires close monitoring from developmental therapies (physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language pathologists) to optimise motor development. Currently, minimal literature defines developmental therapists’ role in caring for infants with critical CHD in intensive or acute care hospital units.
Purpose:This article describes typical infant motor skill development, how the hospital environment and events surrounding early cardiac surgical interventions impact those skills, and how developmental therapists support motor skill acquisition in infants with critical CHD. Recommendations for healthcare professionals and those who provide medical or developmental support in promotion of optimal motor skill development in hospitalised infants with critical CHD are discussed.
Conclusions:Infants with critical CHD requiring neonatal surgical intervention experience interrupted motor skill interactions and developmental trajectories. As part of the interdisciplinary team working in intensive and acute care settings, developmental therapists assess, guide motor intervention, promote optimal motor skill acquisition, and support the infant’s overall development.
The diversity officer: Police officers' and black women civilians' epistemologies of race and racism in policing
- Shannon Malone Gonzalez, Samantha J. Simon, Katie Kaufman Rogers
-
- Journal:
- Law & Society Review / Volume 56 / Issue 3 / September 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2024, pp. 477-499
- Print publication:
- September 2022
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Diversifying police forces has been suggested to improve “police-minority relations” amidst national uprisings against police violence. Yet, little research investigates how police and black civilians—two groups invoked in discourse on “police-minority relations”—understand the function of diversity interventions. We draw on 100 in-depth interviews with 60 black women civilians and 40 police from various racial and ethnic backgrounds to explore how they understand the function of racial diversity in policing. Findings highlight discrepancies in how these two groups frame the utility of racial diversity in policing, revealing conflicting epistemologies of race and racism. Police draw on an epistemology of racial ignorance (Mills 1997, 2007, 2015) to selectively accommodate race-conscious critique while denying the history and power dynamics between the institution and minority communities. Conversely, black women civilians, grounded in a standpoint epistemology (Collins, 1986, 2009), emphasize the historical roots of policing, along with collective memories, and lived experiences to understand the relationship between the institution and minority communities. Through a comparative analysis of these frames, we theorize dominant/state-sponsored discourse on diversity and police-minority relations as form of racecraft (Fields & Fields 2012, 2014) that serves to legitimize negligible institutional change to policing in an era of renewed scrutiny of police racism.
Twenty - The View from the Socio-Spatial Peripheries: Milan, Italy and Toronto, Canada
- Edited by Pierre Filion, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Brian Doucet, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Rianne van Melik
-
- Book:
- Volume 4: Policy and Planning
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 25 April 2023
- Print publication:
- 22 July 2021, pp 211-222
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
At first, the virus causing COVID-19 spread from Wuhan in much the same way as its predecessor, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), did in 2003: through the network of global industrial and financial centers that define the structure of the world economy. But the trajectory of COVID-19 turned out to be more complex: the new virus proliferates nearly everywhere, including in urban peripheries that have characterized recent urbanization trends. The environments of COVID-19 transmission in the global urban peripheries coalesce into multifaceted and complex geographies characterized by health care system (in)equality, lack of infrastructures, overcrowding, low-wage labor, racism, vulnerability of age/living in an institution, and so on. While posing a major challenge to public health systems around the world, the pandemic has thrown the contemporary challenges for the responses to outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases into sharper view, especially with reference to the accelerated extension of urban processes and forms into regions that had previously not been urbanized. But twelve months into the pandemic, as it has now rolled over most settled regions around the world, places in the global urban world and the spaces between them have generated complex, and often contradictory, outbreak and reopening narratives.
Urbanists have weighed residential density, degrees of informality, transportation modes, housing form, availability of park space, and a host of other factors in determining patterns in the proliferation of COVID-19. Social scientists have pointed to race, class, age, disability, and gender as important determinants. Students of public policy and institutions have pointed to insufficiencies in public health pandemic preparedness and catastrophic negligence in long-term care homes. Labor researchers have highlighted the lack of state regulation and oversight at precarious workplaces such as meatpacking plants, in the agricultural sector, and in long-term care homes. How those factors add up across cities and urban networks specifically will be important to understand as this pandemic continues and as the urban world prepares to face the next, possibly still unknown, contagion that will pose a systemic threat. Put simply, the health crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic is highly associated with processes of urbanization and globalization but in nonlinear and unpredictable ways.
We follow the virus to the Italian metropolis of Milan and the Canadian urban region of Toronto. Milan was the European epicenter of the first wave, next to the Spanish capital of Madrid.
Whither the “Improvement Standard”? Coverage for Severe Brain Injury after Jimmo v. Sebelius
- Joseph J. Fins, Megan S. Wright, Claudia Kraft, Alix Rogers, Marina B. Romani, Samantha Godwin, Michael R. Ulrich
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics / Volume 44 / Issue 1 / Spring 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 182-193
- Print publication:
- Spring 2016
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
As improvements in neuroscience have enabled a better understanding of disorders of consciousness as well as methods to treat them, a hurdle that has become all too prevalent is the denial of coverage for treatment and rehabilitation services. In 2011, a settlement emerged from a Vermont District Court case, Jimmo v. Sebelius, which was brought to stop the use of an “improvement standard” that required tangible progress over an identifiable period of time for Medicare coverage of services. While the use of this standard can have deleterious effects on those with many chronic conditions, it is especially burdensome for those in the minimally conscious state (MCS), where improvements are unpredictable and often not manifested through repeatable overt behaviors. Though the focus of this paper is on the challenges of brain injury and the minimally conscious state, which an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 individuals suffer from in the United States, the post-Jimmo arguments presented can and should have a broad impact as envisioned by the plaintiffs who brought the case on behalf of multiple advocacy groups representing patients with a range of chronic care conditions.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Can older “at risk” adults benefit from psychoeducation targeting healthy brain aging?
- Louisa M. Norrie, Keri Diamond, Ian B. Hickie, Naomi L. Rogers, Samantha Fearns, Sharon L. Naismith
-
- Journal:
- International Psychogeriatrics / Volume 23 / Issue 3 / April 2011
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 30 July 2010, pp. 413-424
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background: Multifactorial strategies that prevent or delay the onset or progress of cognitive decline and dementia are needed, and should include education regarding recognized risk factors. The current study sought to investigate whether older adults “at risk” of cognitive decline benefit from psychoeducation targeting healthy brain aging.
Methods: 65 participants (mean age 64.8 years, SD 9.6) with a lifetime history of major depression; vascular risk as evidenced by at least one vascular risk factor; and/or subjective or objective memory impairment were allocated to weekly psychoeducation sessions or a waitlist control group. The small group sessions were conducted over ten weeks by a team of medical and allied health professionals with expertise in late-life depression and cognition. Sessions focused on modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline including vascular risk, diet, exercise, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance, as well as providing practical strategies for memory and cognition. Both the psychoeducation and waitlist group completed a 20-item knowledge test at baseline and follow-up. Participants in the psychoeducation group were asked to complete follow-up self-report satisfaction questionnaires.
Results: Repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant interaction effect depicting improvements in knowledge associated with psychoeducation, corresponding to an improvement of 15% from baseline. Satisfaction data additionally showed that 92.3% of participants rated the program as “good” to “excellent”, and over 90% suggested they would recommend it to others.
Conclusions: A group-based psychoeducation program targeting healthy brain aging is effective in improving knowledge. Additionally, it is acceptable and rated highly by participants.