Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Study protocol
  • Open access
  • Published:

Efficacy of memory training in healthy community-dwelling older people: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BMC Geriatrics volume 15, Article number: 113 (2015) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There is limited evidence on the efficacy and social utility of cognitive training. To address this, we have designed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of memory training workshops for healthy older people in terms of their short- and long-term impact on cognitive function, health-related quality of life, and functionality.

Methods/design

A randomized controlled trial will be performed in health care centers in Barcelona (Spain) through comparison of a group of individuals participating in memory training workshops (experimental group) with another group with similar characteristics not participating in the workshops (control group). The intervention will consist of twelve 90-minute group sessions imparted once a week by a psychologist specialized in memory training. The groups will each comprise approximately 15 people, for a total number of 230 patients involved in the study. Each session has its own objectives, materials and activities. The content of the intervention is based on memory training from different perspectives, including cognitive and emotional aspects and social and individual skills. Data will be collected at baseline, at 3–4 months and at 6 months. To assess the efficacy of the intervention on cognitive function, health-related quality of life and functionality, a statistical analysis will be performed by fitting a repeated-measures mixed effects model for each main outcome: Self-perceived memory, measured by a Subjective Self-reported Memory Score (from 0 to 10) and by the Memory Failures in Everyday life questionnaire (MFE); Everyday memory, measured using the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test-3 (RBMT-3) and Executive control abilities, measured in terms of visual-perceptual ability, working memory and task-switching ability with the Trail Making Test (TMT) and with the digit span scale of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (WAIS III).

Discussion

The results of this study will be highly useful for social and public health policies related to older people. Given the continuous increase in the prevalence of older people, a large number of interventions targeting memory loss are funded by public resources. To ensure transparency and effective prioritization, research such as the present study is needed to provide evidence of the effectiveness and usefulness of these interventions.

Trial registration

Number: NCT02431182.

Peer Review reports

Background

Social changes in the twentieth century have been characterized by worldwide population aging, especially in developed countries. This has led to major changes in disease distribution, with an increase in the prevalence of chronic and degenerative diseases, including cognitive impairment and dementia. Between 2000 and 2050, the proportion of the global population older than 60 years will double from approximately 11 % (605 million people) to 22 % (2 billion people) [1]. In Spain, the estimated proportion of people older than 64 years in 2050 is approximately 30 % of the population [2]. In 2012, an estimated 8.4 million people aged 60 years and older had dementia in European Union member states, accounting for 7 % of the population in that group. Spain had one of the highest prevalence rates of dementia, which affects more than 7.5 % of the population aged 60 years and older [3].

Consequently, there is increased interest in new pharmacologic treatments for dementia as well as in non-pharmacological preventive interventions. These non-pharmacological interventions are mainly based on cognitive training to optimize the performance of existing functions and to decrease the risk of cognitive impairment. The benefits of teaching rehabilitative and compensatory strategies in older persons who already have memory complaints have been shown in multiple studies [4]. However, the evidence on the effects of cognitive training on cognition in healthy elderly persons is less conclusive [5]. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials in healthy older persons concluded that training improved immediate performance on related tasks, but that there was no evidence for any generalizability of training [5]. Among the studies included in that review, a notable publication was the ACTIVE trial, which included 2800 healthy elders. In that trial, participants demonstrated significant changes in each of the three cognitive abilities for which they had received training: memory, inductive reasoning, and speed of processing. The authors estimated that the magnitude of the observed effect was equivalent to avoiding the impairment that would take place in the natural course of life of healthy people in a period between 7 and 14 years [6]. Overall, some of the characteristics associated with the success of the interventions described were the group structure, the duration (at least 8–10 sessions) and the intensity (60–90 minutes each session). In terms of content, there was no clear pattern of methods or strategies, although most of the interventions that were successful used memory training techniques, especially for episodic memory [7, 8].

Given the limited evidence available on the efficacy and social utility of cognitive training, we have designed a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of cognitive training through memory training workshops offered to healthy older persons in terms of their immediate and delayed impact on cognitive function, health-related quality of life and functionality.

The paper partially meets the requirements for the PhD program of Anna Pérez Giménez at the Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain).

Hypothesis

The group memory training intervention proposed in this protocol will significantly improve cognition (memory, attention and executive control abilities) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the experimental group (EG) compared with the control group (CG).

Objectives

Principal objective

To assess the efficacy of a memory training workshop in improving self-perceived memory, everyday memory, and executive control abilities.

Secondary objective

To assess the effect of the memory training workshop on HRQoL and on late-life function and disability.

Methods

Study design

This is a randomized controlled trial, comparing a group of individuals taking part in the memory training workshops (EG) with another group with similar characteristics not attending the workshops (CG). Data will be collected at baseline and at 3 and 6 months.

Study setting and participants

The study will be conducted in health care centers in Barcelona (Spain). Included participants comprise healthy older people registered in any of the four health care centers included in the study and meeting the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria are: a) men and women aged between 65 and 80 years (inclusive) who consent to participate in the study; b) not presenting with diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment measured through the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE >24) [9, 10] and c), absence of depression measured using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS 5 ≤ 2) [11]. The exclusion criteria are: a) having participated in a memory training program within the last 3 years; b) having a severe sensorial disability and c) being unable to read or write. Each participant has the right to withdraw from the study at any time. In addition, a participant may be withdrawn from the study if deemed necessary by the researchers based on any of the following withdrawal criteria: a) adverse experience; b) significant non-adherence to the intervention (missing more than 50 % of the sessions); c) loss-to-follow-up; d) clinical conditions not allowing the participant to continue in the study (such as illness and accident); and e) death.

Description of the study (Figure 1):

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of enrollment, allocation and follow up

Full size image

Figure 1 outlines the participant flowchart of the study procedure:

  1. 1.

    Enrollment: Recruitment will be conducted in the four participating health care centers through printed materials (leaflets and posters) in the health care centers and close community sites (library, pharmacy, market or older persons’ meeting center). Interested individuals will be required to contact their corresponding health care center, where they will first be screened for age (older than 65 years and younger than 81 years) and previous memory training (not having received memory training during the 3 previous years). Those who meet both criteria will be given an appointment to attend an inclusion interview with a study-specific trained physician or nurse at the health care center. Informed consent follows the requirements of the l’Institut d’Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAP Jordi Gol) Clinical Research Ethics Committee. Written consent to participate will be obtained from each person at the beginning of the screening interview. Participants will be selected through the screening interview, which will be used to gather socio-demographic data and enquire about the participant’s medical history and active clinical diagnoses and medications. The GDS-5 and the MMSE will be administered.

  2. 2.

    Allocation: After the screening interview, and if the participant is eligible and willing, he or she will be randomly assigned to the EG or to the CG using a closed, opaque envelope with the group information inside. The total time required for screening will be around 30 minutes.

  3. 3.

    Baseline and follow-up assessments: Three assessments will be conducted during the study period: at baseline after randomization, between 3 and 4 months post-intervention (short-term post-test), and at 6 months post-intervention (long-term post-test). All three assessments will collect information on the variables detailed in Table 1 and will be conducted by a trained psychologist through in-person interviews in the health care center. Time requirements will be approximately 75 minutes for the baseline assessment and approximately 90 minutes for the follow-up assessments. Standardization of data collection procedures will be ensured through a variety of training and quality-control procedures adhering to CONSORT guidelines for transparent reporting [12]. Data collectors will be blind to the treatment group assignment. All data collectors will participate in an intensive 2-day training workshop that will include information on the study design, recruitment issues, and general research interviewing principles; detailed instruction on the administration of each test or measurement procedure; demonstrations of each test/measurement; and practice sessions with other data collectors. Furthermore, the data collectors will use a user-friendly answer sheet specially designed for the study. All completed sheets will be reviewed by the fieldwork coordinator who, if there are missing data or possible mistakes, will contact the data collectors to resolve any queries.

Table 1 Tests and other data for the evaluation of the memory training workshop
Full size table

Description of the intervention

Once the baseline assessment has been conducted, individuals in the EG will start the multifactorial intervention. The memory training workshop is designed to stop or delay age-related memory losses and promote personal autonomy, thus enhancing mental and physical wellbeing. Specifically, these workshops aim to broaden knowledge on memory function, improve memory processes, and increase self-esteem and quality of life by providing some strategies (i.e., strategies for collecting and coding information) and relational space. The intervention will consist of twelve 90-minute group sessions provided once a week by a psychologist specialized in memory training. The groups will be composed of around 15 people. Each session will have its own objectives, materials, and activities (Table 2). The content of the intervention is based on memory training from different perspectives such as cognitive and emotional aspects and social and individual skills.

Table 2 Contents of the memory training workshop by session
Full size table

Outcome measures

Screening variables: Depressive symptoms will be measured using the GDS [13], which has been adapted and validated for the Spanish geriatric population [14]. The shortened, GDS-5 will be used to screen potential participants [15]. The GDS-15 version will be used for the follow-up assessments [16]. Cognitive function will be evaluated using the 11-item MMSE, which will be used to screen probable cognitively-impaired individuals (MMSE values below 24 points) [17]. Sociodemographic information will be collected on age, gender, marital status, living arrangements, education level, last occupation, and residential neighborhood. Individual socioeconomic status will be obtained through the last occupation of the individual according to the last classification of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology [18]. The residential neighborhood will allow an ecological socioeconomic score to be obtained, based on indicators such as graduate rates, unemployment rates, vehicles, second-hand home prices, and the Disposable Household Income Index [19].

Main outcomes

Self-perceived memory will be measured using a subjective self-reported memory score (from 0 to 10), as well as with the Memory Failures in Everyday life questionnaire (MFE). This questionnaire consists of 28 items and uses a Likert-type scale referring to perception of everyday memory problems [20–22].

Everyday memory will be measured using the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test-3 (RBMT-3) [23]. This cognitive test evaluates different types of memory, such as associative memory, prospective memory, visual memory, topographical memory, and verbal memory. The test provides a General Memory Index and different subtest scales.

Executive control abilities will be measured in terms of visual-perceptual ability, working memory and task-switching ability with the Trail Making Test (TMT) [24]. This neuropsychological test is divided into two parts and the score on each part represents the amount of time required to complete the task [25]. Working memory will also be assessed using the digit span scale of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (WAIS III).

Secondary outcomes

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) will be assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) [26, 27], with a validated Spanish version [28, 29]. Of the 36 items, 35 make up eight scales: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical functioning, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health [26].

Functionality and disability will be measured with the Spanish Version of the Short-Form Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (SFLLFDI) [30, 31]. The LLFDI was developed as a comprehensive assessment of function and disability for use in community-dwelling older adults. It contains items that represent functional limitations (inability to perform discreet physical tasks encountered in daily routines) and disability (inability to take part in major life tasks and social roles).

Intervention-related variables

Other variables related to the implementation of the intervention will be collected, such as the number of sessions the person has attended, the participants’ satisfaction with the workshops, the usefulness of the program, and overall impressions. The professionals conducting the workshops will also evaluate individual and group progress.

Sample size calculation

The sample size was calculated to detect a difference in everyday memory higher than 2 points (0.5 SD) on the mean RBMT-3 score between the control and the intervention group [32]. Accepting an alpha risk of 0.05 and a beta risk of 0.1 in a bilateral contrast, and assuming a mean score of 16.07 and an SD of 4.19 [33] on the RBMT-3 in the Spanish population aged between 70 and 75 years, 75 individuals in each group will be needed. To ensure this sample size and considering an estimated rate of losses of 20 % in the EG and 40 % in the CG, the final sample size needed is 195 individuals (90 in EG and 105 people in CG, respectively).

Statistical analysis

Baseline comparability between the study arms will be assessed through bivariate analyses of the pre-test data set group (dependent and independent variables) comparing the control and the experimental arms. The chi-square test will be used to compare qualitative data, as well as the Student t test or the Mann–Whitney test for quantitative data, depending on the normality of the distribution. If differences are found in baseline characteristics, we will consider adjusting for these variables in the efficacy analysis.

A descriptive analysis will be conducted for results at baseline, at the immediate follow-up and at the delayed follow-up for the EG and CG. Categorical outcomes will be described through raw frequencies or percentages, and continuous outcomes will be described through mean scores and standard deviations. Effect measures for each outcome at the immediate and delayed follow-ups will be computed as the mean of the differences of the aggregated scores for the EG and CG. Effect measures will be presented with their 95 % confidence intervals.

The main statistical analyses to assess the efficacy of the intervention on self-perceived memory, everyday memory and executive control abilities will be performed using a repeated-measures mixed effects model for each main outcome defined in the protocol [34]. In each model, the independent variables will be the group (EG or CG), time (baseline, immediate follow-up or delayed follow-up) and any relevant characteristics that differ between the groups at the baseline assessment (e.g., age or educational level). An interaction term between time and group will be included in the analyses. The models will be fitted with the available data, ignoring missing data.

To determine whether the results have been influenced by missing data, we will conduct sensitivity analyses by fitting the models with completed datasets obtained by imputing the missing data [35]. In this analysis, missing values for the immediate or delayed post-test assessments will be imputed through the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) strategy. According to this strategy, missing values will receive the value obtained by the participant in the previous assessment. In addition, we will perform sensitivity analyses restricted to those participants attending at least 80 % of the sessions.

Ethics considerations

The participants will be informed both verbally and in writing about the aims, methods, procedures and measures performed during this study. They will also be informed about ethical issues such as confidentiality, their right to ask any questions during the study and their right to withdraw at any time. To ensure that all participants have received information about this research project and agreed to participate, all participants will be asked to sign a written consent form. The research team is committed to performing this study according to the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. This protocol was approved by the Comitè Ètic d’Investigació Clínica (CEIC) del IDIAP Jordi Gol.

Discussion

Quality control

Reliability and validity are considered to be the key criteria for assessing the quality of quantitative studies. To assure these qualities, the randomization list of this randomized controlled trial will be computer-generated and will remain concealed until the participants’ assignment to each group. After the informed consent form has been signed, a study entry number will be assigned to each participant. This number will be on the outside of a closed, opaque envelope, which will allocate the participant to either the EG or the CG (single-blind allocation). Allocation concealment will prevent the occurrence of selection bias before the interventions are provided to the participants [36]. In addition, the professionals who will carry out the neurocognitive evaluations (pre-test, short-term post-test and long-term post-test) and the memory training workshop professionals will not be aware of the group to which each participant belongs.

The following procedures will also be used to guarantee the quality of the information. The intervention will be carried out by trained personnel who will follow the same protocol and materials, thus guaranteeing the homogeneity of the intervention. The same will occur with data collection, which will be conducted by specially trained professionals. Data will be collected through a specifically created data-register sheet designed by Teleform® v.10.2 software. This automated software reads scanned questionnaires and performs a validation process of the data with previously established parameters; once the data have been validated, they are entered into a specifically created dataset.

Implications

The memory training workshop proposed in the present study could be considered as paradigmatic of the memory training interventions that are being conducted in Barcelona, even in Spain, as most of them follow the same pattern. [8, 32, 37–39]. The results of this study will be very useful for social and public health policies for older people. The findings of this study should be considered when decisions need to be made regarding investing public resources in certain interventions.

Strengths and limitations

Our study has some important strengths; it is the first randomized controlled trial aiming to demonstrate the effectiveness of memory training in healthy older people in Spain. Additionally, we will apply a wide variety of validated tests, which will allow for assessment of the potential impact of the intervention on several health-related outcomes (memory, other executive control abilities, HRQoL, life function and disability), as well as comparisons with other studies.

A possible limitation is the length of follow up, less than 1 year, which may negatively affect our results because some increases in memory problems may not be detected. Another limitation of our study is that it does not include a matched active control group. Therefore, we will not be able to isolate the memory training effects from the potential confounding benefits of increased social contact.

Abbreviations

CG:

Control Group

EG:

Experimental Group

GDS:

Geriatric depression scale

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

MMSE:

Mini-mental state examination

MFE:

The memory failures of everyday questionnaire

RBMT-3:

Rivermead behavioural memory test-3

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

SFLLFDI:

Spanish version of the short-form late-life function and disability instrument

SD:

Standard deviation

TMT:

Trail making test

WAIS:

Wechsler adult intelligence scale

References

  1. WHO. Ageing and Life Course. Facts about ageing [Internet]. World Health Organization. 2014 [cited 2015 Oct 2]. Available from: http://www.who.int/ageing/about/facts/en/

  2. Guijarro M, Peláez O. Proyección a largo plazo de la esperanza de vida en España. Estad Esp. 2009;51(170):193–220.

    Google Scholar 

  3. OECD, European Union. Health at a Glance: Europe 2014 [Internet]. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2014 [cited 2015 Jan 29]. Available from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/health_glance_eur-2014-en

  4. Sitzer DI, Twamley EW, Jeste DV. Cognitive training in Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis of the literature. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006;114(2):75–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Papp KV, Walsh SJ, Snyder PJ. Immediate and delayed effects of cognitive interventions in healthy elderly: a review of current literature and future directions. Alzheimers Dement J Alzheimers Assoc. 2009;5(1):50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ball K, Berch DB, Helmers KF, Jobe JB, Leveck MD, Marsiske M, et al. Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(18):2271–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Verhaeghen P, Salthouse TA. Meta-analyses of age-cognition relations in adulthood: estimates of linear and nonlinear age effects and structural models. Psychol Bull. 1997;122(3):231–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Novoa AM, Juárez O, Nebot M. Review of the effectiveness of cognitive interventions in preventing cognitive deterioration in healthy elderly individuals. Gac Sanit SESPAS. 2008;22(5):474–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blesa R, Pujol M, Aguilar M, Santacruz P, Bertran-Serra I, Hernández G, et al. Clinical validity of the “mini-mental state” for Spanish speaking communities. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39(11):1150–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Marwijk HW, Wallace P, de Bock GH, Hermans J, Kaptein AA, Mulder JD. Evaluation of the feasibility, reliability and diagnostic value of shortened versions of the geriatric depression scale. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract. 1995;45(393):195–9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1–e37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 1982. 1983;17(1):37–49.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Martínez de la Iglesia J, Onís Vilches MC, Dueñas Herrero R, Albert Colomer C, Aguado Taberné C, Luque Luque R. Versión española del cuestionario de Yesavage abreviado (GDS) para el despistaje de depresión en mayores de 65 años: adaptación y validación. Medifam. 2002;12(10):26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rinaldi P, Mecocci P, Benedetti C, Ercolani S, Bregnocchi M, Menculini G, et al. Validation of the five-item geriatric depression scale in elderly subjects in three different settings. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(5):694–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marc LG, Raue PJ, Bruce ML. Screening Performance of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) in a Diverse Elderly Home Care Population. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Off J Am Assoc Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16(11):914–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosselli M, Tappen R, Williams C, Salvatierra J. The relation of education and gender on the attention items of the Mini-Mental State Examination in Spanish speaking Hispanic elders. Arch Clin Neuropsychol Off J Natl Acad Neuropsychol. 2006;21(7):677–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Domingo-Salvany A, Bacigalupe A, Carrasco JM, Espelt A, Ferrando J, Borrell C, et al. Proposals for social class classification based on the Spanish National Classification of Occupations 2011 using neo-Weberian and neo-Marxist approaches. Gac Sanit SESPAS. 2013;27(3):263–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ajuntament de Barcelona. RFD 2013_bcn.pdf [Internet]. Distribució Territorial de la Renda Familiar Disponible per Càpita a Barcelona (2012). 2012 [cited 2015 Apr 23]. Available from: http://barcelonaeconomia.bcn.cat/sites/default/files/RFD%202013_bcn.pdf

  20. Sunderland A, Watts K, Baddeley AD, Harris JE. Subjective memory assessment and test performance in elderly adults. J Gerontol. 1986;41(3):376–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lozoya-Delgado P, de León JM R-S, Pedrero-Pérez EJ. Validation of a cognitive complaints questionnaire for young adults: the relation between subjective memory complaints, prefrontal symptoms and perceived stress. Rev Neurol. 2012;54(3):137–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montejo Carrasco P, Montenegro PM, Sueiro MJ. The memory failures of everyday questionnaire (MFE): internal consistency and reliability. Span J Psychol. 2012;15(2):768–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson BA, Greenfield E, Clare L, Baddeley A, Cockburn J, Watson P, et al. Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test- Third Edition (RBMT-3). London, United Kingdom: Pearson; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sánchez-Cubillo I, Periáñez JA, Adrover-Roig D, Rodríguez-Sánchez JM, Ríos-Lago M, Tirapu J, et al. Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J Int Neuropsychol Soc JINS. 2009;15(3):438–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tombaugh TN. Trail Making Test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19(2):203–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305(6846):160–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ware JE, The SCD, MOS. 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clínica. 1995;104(20):771–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Vilagut G, Ferrer M, Rajmil L, Rebollo P, Permanyer-Miralda G, Quintana JM, et al. The Spanish version of the Short Form 36 Health Survey: a decade of experience and new developments. Gac Sanit SESPAS. 2005;19(2):135–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Abizanda P, López-Jiménez M, López-Torres J, Atienzar-Núñez P, Naranjo JM, McAuley E. Validation of the Spanish version of the Short-Form Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(5):893–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sayers SP, Jette AM, Haley SM, Heeren TC, Guralnik JM, Fielding RA. Validation of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(9):1554–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Montenegro Peña M, Montejo Carrasco P, Reinoso García AI, de Andrés Montes ME, Claver Martín MD. Efectos obtenidos por un programa de entrenamiento de memoria para mayores de 65 años (Método UMAM). [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2015 Feb 4]. Available from: http://www.psiquiatria.com/bibliopsiquis/handle/10401/2110

  33. Alonso MA, Prieto P. Validación de la versión en español del Test Conductual de Memoria de Rivermead (RBMT) para la población mayor de 70 años. Psicothema. 2004;16(2):325–8.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cnaan A, Laird NM, Slasor P. Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data. Stat Med. 1997;16(20):2349–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schafer JL. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Calero García MD, Navarro-González E. Eficacia de un programa de entrenamiento en memoria en el mantenimiento de ancianos con y sin deterioro cognitivo. Clínica Salud. 2006;17(2):187–202.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Latorre Postigo JM, Hernández-Viadel JV, Trives JJR. Efficacy of a group memory training method for older adults based on visualization and association techniques: A randomized, controlled trial with a placebo group. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2010;24(7):956–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nebot M, Burón A, Pasarín M, Hortal N, Juárez O, Quintana E. Cognitive impairment prevention: characteristics of memory workshops in Barcelona. Atencion Primaria Soc Esp Med Fam Comunitaria. 2012;44(1):54–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This protocol was designed with financial assistance from the Ministry of Health of Spain, provided by the Carlos III Health Institute (PI11/02060). We would like to express our gratitude to Manel Nebot, who was the principal investigator of the protocol and who died during its development. Without his courage, experience and motivation, the project would have not been possible.

Funding

The study was funded by the Acción Estratégica en Salud of the Instituto Carlos III of the Spanish Government (http://www.isciii.es/ISCIII/es/contenidos/fd-investigacion/fd-financiacion/convocatorias-ayudasaccion-estrategica-salud.shtml)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agència de Salut Púbica de Barcelona (ASPB), Pl Lesseps, Barcelona, 1 (08023), Spain

    Anna Pérez, Montse Petit, Núria Hortal, Albert Espelt & Maria José López

  2. Ciber de Epiedmiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), C/ Melchor Fernández, Almagro, Madrid, 3-5 (28029), Spain

    Anna Pérez & Maria José López

  3. Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica (IIB Sant Pau), C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret, Barcelona, 167 (08025), Spain

    Anna Pérez, Marta Roqué, Albert Espelt & Maria José López

  4. Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret, Barcelona, 167 (08025), Spain

    Marta Roqué

  5. Institut de l’Envelliment, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret, Barcelona, 171 (08041), Spain

    Sara Domènech

  6. Equip d’Atenció Primària Sardenya, C/ de Sardenya, Barcelona, 466 (08025), Spain

    Rosa Monteserín & Núria Soriano

  7. Centre d’Atenció Primària Roquetes-Canteres, C/ Garigliano, Barcelona, 23 (08042), Spain

    Xavier Blancafort

  8. Centre d’Atenció Primària Sant Rafael, Pg. de la Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, 107-117 (08035), Spain

    Maria Bosom

  9. Fundació Pere Tarrés, C/ Numància, Barcelona, 149-151 (08029), Spain

    Cristina Vidal

  10. Departament de Gent Gran Ajuntament de Barcelona, C/ València, Barcelona, 344 (08009), Spain

    Carles Gil

  11. Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF) (Experimental and Health Sciences Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona (Spain)), C/ Doctor Aiguader, Barcelona, 88 (08003), Spain

    Maria José López

Authors
  1. Anna Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Roqué
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Domènech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosa Monteserín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Núria Soriano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xavier Blancafort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maria Bosom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cristina Vidal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Montse Petit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Núria Hortal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Carles Gil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Albert Espelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Maria José López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Pérez.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Some of the authors periodically impart memory training workshops in their health care centers.

Authors’ contributions

Authors Anna Pérez, Maria José López and Marta Roqué played a significant role in the manuscript preparation. Author Anna Pérez was responsible for the research protocol design, which was developed by all the authors. Authors Xavier Blancafort, Rosa Monteserín, Núria Soriano and Maria Bossom played an important role in health centers implication in which Sara Domènech also contributed. Finally, Cristina Vidal, Carles Gil, Montse Petit, Núria Hortal and Albert Espelt contributed to the project’s supervision and manuscript preparation. All authors edited, read and approved the manuscript.

Authors' information

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pérez, A., Roqué, M., Domènech, S. et al. Efficacy of memory training in healthy community-dwelling older people: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr 15, 113 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0110-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0110-4

Keywords