Dean, P.M.

There is currently limited and mixed evidence for the cognitive benefits of Computerized Cognitive Training (CCT) and yoga in persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment (pwMCI). The objective of this study was to investigate the benefit of computerized cognitive training (CCT) vs. physical (yoga) intervention on cognitive abilities. Participants in this study were part of the larger Mayo Clinic’s Healthy Action to Benefit Independence and Thinking (HABIT) program comparative effectiveness trial. The HABIT program is designed for pwMCI and their care partner and consists of five behavioral interventions: CCT, Memory Support System-Calendar (MSS-Calendar), wellness education, support groups, and yoga. The subtractive study design randomly withheld one of the interventions for a total of five study arms. Longitudinal mixed-effects regression models were used to investigate the hypothesis that CCT and yoga has a greater positive impact on psychomotor and basic attention abilities at 12 months post-intervention as compared to the other HABIT interventions. Findings showed CCT had a positive impact compared to yoga on the Cogstate psychomotor/attention composite at 12 months post-intervention (ES = 0.54; unadjusted p value = 0.007, adjusted p value = 0.021). The impact of yoga or combining CCT with yoga did not show statistically significant improvement. Continued CCT practice at home showed further benefit on psychomotor/attention at 12 months post-intervention. There was no significant benefit of CCT or yoga on Cogstate learning/working memory composite.

Background: Research has shown that individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) value quality of life (QoL) above and beyond cognitive function or other potential outcomes in MCI. There is evidence supporting the negative impact of poor physical function on QoL ratings. Objective: The study explored whether a modified measure of self-efficacy for managing MCI and education mediated and/or moderated the relationship between physical function and QoL in persons with MCI. Methods: Baseline data from 200 participants with MCI were obtained from a larger study assessing the effectiveness of a behavioral intervention. Physical function was assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery. QoL was assessed with the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease scale. Memory-related self-efficacy was assessed using a modified 9-item version of the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scales. Mediation and moderation analyses tested the hypotheses that self-efficacy and education alter the association between physical function and QoL in individuals with MCI. All analyses were adjusted for age, cognitive severity, and sex. Results: Self-efficacy for managing MCI was a significant mediator of the association between physical function and perceived QoL. Individuals with better physical function reported higher self-efficacy which was associated with higher QoL ratings. Conclusions: Greater self-efficacy for managing MCI mediated the negative association between physical function and quality of life in this exploratory study. Interventions aimed at enhancing memory self-efficacy in MCI may improve perceived QoL, even in the presence of poor physical function. Future research is needed to investigate this further.

The Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) is a multidimensional cognitive measure popular with clinicians for its brevity, diagnostic validity, and utility in monitoring impairment severity. In spite of the test’s significant value, one task can cause discomfort because the patient is asked to name items the examiner is wearing. This task also creates possible cultural bias and standardization issues. We studied 102 MDRS profiles that included this item. Adjusted scores were calculated by giving all patients full credit for the apparel-naming item. The average adjustment was just one point, and the resulting dementia-severity ratings remained unchanged in 97% of the patients. These results show that administration of the item can be defensibly skipped if there is concern about its appropriateness with an individual patient. The adjusted scores provide a viable and fair alternative that preserves the psychometric properties of this useful instrument.