Feasibility of a cognitive strategy training intervention for people with Parkinson's disease.
Erin R Foster, Daniel Spence, Joan Toglia
PMID 28637142WHAT IT FOUND
Seven people with Parkinson's and subjective cognitive decline found a home-based strategy training intervention feasible and satisfying.
They reported clinically important improvements in self-identified functional problems, but this case series cannot prove the treatment works.
Key findings
01Participants rated the intervention as credible and satisfying, with high effort and enjoyment during sessions.
02Homework adherence was generally high, though participants with lower cognitive scores and higher depression had lower completion rates.
03Exploratory measures showed clinically important improvements in self-reported performance and satisfaction, but the study was not designed to test efficacy.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a small case series of only seven participants, so it cannot determine if the intervention is effective. All participants were highly educated, had high socioeconomic status, and were motivated, which may limit generalizability to patients with different backgrounds or less insight. A single therapist delivered all interventions, and some feasibility measures were completed with the therapist present, which could bias satisfaction ratings. The study did not have a control group, so improvements cannot be attributed solely to the intervention. One participant dropped out after pre-testing, and the sample included only people with subjective cognitive decline, not those with diagnosed mild cognitive impairment or dementia.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that this intervention improves cognitive function or daily performance. The study was designed only to test feasibility and acceptability. The reported improvements in self-reported performance were exploratory and occurred in a very small, highly selected group of motivated participants without a control group, so they cannot be interpreted as evidence of efficacy.