Article

Effects of reality orientation therapy on elderly patients in the community.

University of Bergamo, Bérgamo, Lombardy, Italy
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics (Impact Factor: 1.53). 11/1993; 17(3):211-8. DOI: 10.1016/0167-4943(93)90052-J
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Twenty-three institutionalized subjects, confused and disoriented as to time, space and persons, were divided into two groups: the study group and the control group. The study group then participated in a 3-month period of formal Realithy Orientation Therapy (ROT). At the end of the 3 months of therapy significant differences emerged in the scores of MMSE, OSGP and GDS obtained by the two groups. Moreover, significant positive differences were observed only in the study group, comparing the tests' results before and after therapy. Even the comparison of the results obtained at the end of the sessions and 3 months after the interruption of the therapy revealed a difference in the trends that emerged for the two groups.

1 Follower
 · 
148 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To evaluate in a pilot single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial the efficacy of an integrated treatment with rivastigmine transdermal patch (RTP) and cognitive stimulation (CS) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients at 6-month follow-up.Methods We enrolled 90 patients with an age ≥65 years admitted to the outpatient Alzheimer's Evaluation Unit with diagnosis of AD. Patients were randomized to enter in the Group-1 (RTP + CS) or in the Group-2 (RTP). All patients at baseline and after 6 months were evaluated with the following tools: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Distress (NPI-D), and a standardized Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, including also activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). Mortality risk was assessed using the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI).ResultsAt baseline no significant difference was shown between the two groups. After 6 months of follow-up, there were significant differences between Group-1 and Group-2 in: MMSE: +6.39% vs. +2.69%, CDR: +6.92% vs. +1.54%, HDRS-D = −60.7% vs. −45.8%, GDS: −60.9% vs. −7.3%, NPI: −55.2% vs. −32.7%%, NPI-D: −55.1% vs. −18.6%, ADL: +13.88% vs. +5.95%, IADL: +67.59% vs. +18.28%, MNA: +12.02% vs. +5.91%, and MPI: −29.03% vs. −12.90%.Conclusion The integrated treatment of RTP with CS in AD patients for 6 months improved significantly cognition, depressive and neuropsychiatric symptoms, functional status, and mortality risk in comparison with a group of AD patients receiving only RTP. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 12/2014; DOI:10.1002/gps.4247 · 3.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the efficacy of cognitive interventions on improving general cognition in dementia. Online literature databases and trial registers, previous systematic reviews and leading journals were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. A systematic review, random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Cognitive interventions were categorised as: cognitive stimulation (CS), involving a range of social and cognitive activities to stimulate multiple cognitive domains; cognitive training (CT), involving repeated practice of standardised tasks targeting a specific cognitive function; cognitive rehabilitation (CR), which takes a person-centred approach to target impaired function; or mixed CT and stimulation (MCTS). Separate analyses were conducted for general cognitive outcome measures and for studies using 'active' (designed to control for non-specific therapeutic effects) and non-active (minimal or no intervention) control groups. 33 studies were included. Significant positive effect sizes (Hedges' g) were found for CS with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) (g=0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69; p<0.001) compared to non-active controls and (g=0.35, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.65; p=0.019) compared to active controls. Significant benefit was also seen with the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale-Cognition (ADAS-Cog) (g=-0.26, 95% CI -0.445 to -0.08; p=0.005). There was no evidence that CT or MCTS produced significant improvements on general cognition outcomes and not enough CR studies for meta-analysis. The lowest accepted minimum clinically important difference was reached in 11/17 CS studies for the MMSE, but only 2/9 studies for the ADAS-Cog. Additionally, 95% prediction intervals suggested that although statistically significant, CS may not lead to benefits on the ADAS-Cog in all clinical settings. CS improves scores on MMSE and ADAS-Cog in dementia, but benefits on the ADAS-Cog are generally not clinically significant and difficulties with blinding of patients and use of adequate placebo controls make comparison with the results of dementia drug treatments problematic. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    BMJ Open 01/2015; 5(4):e005247. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005247 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source