Hoffman‐Snyder, Charlene

This pilot study examined the functional impact of computerized versus compensatory calendar training in cognitive rehabilitation participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Fifty-seven participants with amnestic MCI completed randomly assigned calendar or computer training. A standard care control group was used for comparison. Measures of adherence, memory-based activities of daily living (mADLs), and self-efficacy were completed. The calendar training group demonstrated significant improvement in mADLs compared to controls, while the computer training group did not. Calendar training may be more effective in improving mADLs than computerized intervention. However, this study highlights how behavioral trials with fewer than 30–50 participants per arm are likely underpowered, resulting in seemingly null findings.

ObjectiveThis study aims to provide effect size estimates of the impact of two cognitive rehabilitation interventions provided to patients with mild cognitive impairment: computerized brain fitness exercise and memory support system on support partners' outcomes of depression, anxiety, quality of life, and partner burden.MethodsA randomized controlled pilot trial was performed.ResultsAt 6 months, the partners from both treatment groups showed stable to improved depression and anxiety scores, while partners in an untreated control group showed worsening depression and anxiety over 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences on quality of life or burden outcomes in this small pilot trial; however, effect sizes were moderate, suggesting that the sample sizes in this pilot study were not adequate to detect statistical significance.ConclusionEither form of cognitive rehabilitation may help partners' mood or anxiety, compared with providing no treatment. However, effect size estimates related to other partner outcomes (i.e., burden, quality of life) suggest that follow‐up efficacy trials will need sample sizes of at least 30–100 people per group to accurately determine significance. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractObjectiveA National Institute on Aging–sponsored work group on preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) articulated the need to characterize cognitive differences between normal aging and preclinical AD.MethodsSeventy‐one apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 homozygotes, 194 ε3/ε4 heterozygotes, and 356 ε4 noncarriers age 21 to 87 years who were cognitively healthy underwent neuropsychological testing every 2 years. Longitudinal trajectories of test scores were compared between APOE subgroups.ResultsThere was a significant effect of age on all cognitive domains in both APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers. A significant effect of APOE ε4 gene dose was confined to the memory domain and the Dementia Rating Scale. Cross‐sectional comparisons did not discriminate the groups.ConclusionsAlthough cognitive aging patterns are similar in APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers, preclinical AD is characterized by a significant ε4 gene dose effect that impacts memory and is detectable longitudinally. Preclinical neuropsychological testing strategies should emphasize memory‐sensitive measures and longitudinal design.

AbstractPurposeUnderstanding the critical appraisal process allows nurse practitioners (NPs) to determine a study's reliability, validity, and applicability to their client(s)/families, and to their clinical practice setting. The purpose of this final part of this four‐part evidence‐based practice (EBP) series is designed to utilize a clinical scenario that will walk the NP through EBP steps 1 through 3 while providing an example of how to critically appraise a randomized control trial.Data sourcesScientific literature review, gray literature, PubMed and other online literature databases and resources, and online EBP websites.ConclusionsAs healthcare providers, our role is to provide the best possible care we can to our client(s) and their families. One way to do this is through the utilization of the EBP process. When EBP processes are integrated into our clinical practice settings it augments the existing provider–client relationship and shared decision‐making process.Implications for practiceIt is hoped that this four‐part series enhanced NPs’ understanding of the EBP processes of developing a clinical inquiry, searching for the best evidence, critically appraising the evidence, and integrating EBP into clinical practice.