Effects of Cognitively Stimulating Activities on the Cognitive Functioning of Older People with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Meta-analysis.

Background: The number of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or those people without dementia who are experiencing age-related cognitive decline, has increased in recent years. Conveniently, several interventions to delay cognitive decline exist, where cognitively stimulating activities (CSA) have been receiving too much attention. However, its beneficial effects have not been well established among older people with MCI due to conflicting findings.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess and summarize the available evidence on the effects of CSA on the overall cognitive functioning of older people with MCI. Specifically, it sought to answer the PICO question, "In older people with MCI, does engagement in cognitively stimulating activities improve cognitive function?"

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining the effects of CSA on older people with MCI were conducted. Three studies met the inclusion criteria from the 1,328 records from BioMed Central, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases and 156 articles from WorldCat, DSpace Saint Louis University, and Google Scholar databases and catalogs. Effect size values were inspected using the random-effects model. Data were summarized as standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals in the forest plot.

Results: This meta-analysis which compared studies that employed similar methodologies, found that CSA has a significant, large effect in improving cognitive functioning among older people with MCI, evidenced by an SMD of 0.798 (95% CI = 0.510-1.085, = 0.001). While its superiority over other interventions that improve cognitive function was not observed in this study, it was still found that using CSA was helpful in terms of its cost-effectiveness. Also, heterogeneity across studies was non-significant (Cochran's Q = 0.151, df = 2, = 0.927, I = 0.00%). These results mean that clinical heterogeneity was absent even though a diverse range of CSA was employed. Additionally, methodological diversity was not present since there were no variations in the study design and minimal variability in the risk of bias assessment.

Conclusion: Overall, it is acknowledged that CSA are effective and practical, inexpensive, non-pharmacologic cognitive training approaches to delay cognitive decline among older people with MCI. However, interpreting this study's significant, large effect, and non-significant heterogeneity warrants caution.