Does computerized cognitive training improve diabetes self-management and cognition? A randomized control trial of middle-aged and older veterans with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: This randomized control trial compared an adaptive computerized cognitive training intervention with a non-adaptive version. The primary hypothesis predicted better diabetes self-management in type 2 diabetes patients at 6 months post-intervention than baseline in the adaptive arm, with seven secondary outcomes. METHODS: Intent-to-treat analysis of veterans without dementia aged 55+ from the Bronx, NY and Ann Arbor, MI (N = 90/per arm) used linear mixed model analyses. RESULTS: Contrary to the hypothesis, only memory showed more improvement in the adaptive arm (p < 0.01). Post-hoc analyses combined the two arms; self-management improved at six-months post-intervention (p < 0.001). Memory, executive functions/attention, prospective memory, diastolic blood pressure, and systolic blood pressure improved (p < 0.05); hemoglobin A1c and medication adherence did not improve significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The adaptive computerized cognitive training was not substantially better than non-adaptive, but may improve memory. Post-hoc results for the combined arms suggest computer-related activities may improve diabetes self-management and other outcomes for middle-aged and older patients with type 2 diabetes. Practice effects or awareness of being studied cannot be ruled out.

Recruitment of Older Veterans with Diabetes Risk for Alzheimer's Disease for a Randomized Clinical Trial of Computerized Cognitive Training.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is prevalent in the general United States population, and in the veteran population. T2DM has consistently been linked to increased risk for cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is practical and inexpensive cognitive interventions that is an alternative to medication. OBJECTIVE: To report the recruitment methods and challenges to date in an ongoing two-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) of CCT on cognitive function and T2DM management in an older non-demented veteran population. METHODS: Veterans are recruited primarily by targeted mailings or by direct contact at clinics and presentations. RESULTS: From 1,459 original contacts, 437 expressed initial interest, 111 provided informed consent, and 97 completed baseline assessments. Participants from the two VA Medical Centers differed in demographics and baseline characteristics. Comparing recruitment methods, the proportion of individuals contacted who were ultimately consented was significantly less from mailings (5%) than other sources (20%), primarily face- to-face clinic visits (χ2 (1) = 38.331, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mailings are cost-effective, but direct contact improved recruitment. Not using or lacking access to computers and ineligibility were major reasons for non-participation. Within-site comparisons of demographically diverse sites can address confounding of demographic and other site differences.