Health education may improve health in geriatric patients. To evaluate differences between remote and in-person education, the DREAMS (Developing a Research Participation Enhancement and Advocacy Training Program for Diverse Seniors) health seminar series compared in-person and remote learning groups to assess feasibility, satisfaction, adherence, health literacy, and cognitive outcomes.
Research Design
Nonrandomized two-arm interventions occurred remotely or in-person. About 130 diverse, older adults (M age: 70.8 ± 9.2 years; in-person n = 95; remote, n = 35) enrolled. Data from 115 completers (In-person n = 80; Remote n = 35) were analyzed for performance outcomes. Feasibility, adherence, and satisfaction benchmarks were evaluated at baseline, immediately post intervention, and 8 weeks post intervention. Adjusting for baseline performances, outcomes on health literacy and cognitive measures were compared between groups after intervention (at posttest and at 8-week follow-up) using adjusted mean differences (β coefficients).
Results
Eighty in-person and all remote participants completed at least six modules. Both programs had high satisfaction, feasibility, and strong adherence. After adjusting for demographic covariates and baseline values, cognitive and motor cognitive measures between groups were domain specific (e.g., global cognition, executive function, spatial memory, mental tracking capacity, and cognitive integration).
Discussion and Implications
This work explores feasible measures of knowledge acquisition and its link to health literacy and cognitive outcomes. Identifying effective delivery methods may increase involvement in clinical research. Future studies may encourage remote learning for increased accessibility.
AghamolaeiT.EftekharH.MohammadK.NakhjavaniM.ShojaeizadehD.GhofranipourF.SafaO. (2005). Effects of a health education program on behavior, HbA1c and health-related quality of life in diabetic patients. Acta Medica Iranica, 43, 89–94.
2.
AmicoK. R. (2009). Percent total attrition: A poor metric for study rigor in hosted intervention sesigns. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1567–1575. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.134767
3.
BadgerT. A.SegrinC.HepworthJ. T.PasvogelA.WeihsK.LopezA. M. (2013). Telephone-delivered health education and interpersonal counseling improve quality of life for Latinas with breast cancer and their supportive partners. Psycho-Oncology, 22(5), 1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3101
4.
BakerD. W.WilliamsM. V.ParkerR. M.GazmararianJ. A.NurssJ. (1999). Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 38(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00116-5
5.
BassP. F.WilsonJ. F.GriffithC. H. (2003). A shortened instrument for literacy screening. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(12), 1036–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2003.10651.x
6.
BattistoJ.EchtK. V.WolfS. L.WeissP.HackneyM. E. (2018). The body position spatial task, a test of whole body spatial cognition: Comparison between adults with and without Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 32(11), 961–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968318804419
7.
BijwaardG.van KippersluisH.VeenmanJ. (2015). Education and health: The role of cognitive ability. Journal of Health Economics, 42, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.03.003
8.
BolandJ.BanksS.KrabbeR.LawrenceS.MurrayT.HenningT.VandenbergM. (2022). A COVID-19-era rapid review: Using Zoom and Skype for qualitative group research. Public Health Research & Practice, 32(2), e31232112. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp31232112
9.
BristowT.JihC.-S.SlabichA.GunnJ. (2016). Standardization and adult norms for the sequential subtracting tasks of serial 3’s and 7’s. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 23(5), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2016.1179504
10.
Cardon-VerbecqC.LoustauM.GuitardE.BonduelleM.DelahayeE.KoskasP.Raynaud-SimonA. (2017). Predicting falls with the cognitive timed up-and-go dual task in frail older patients. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 60(2), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2016.07.003
11.
CarrierL. M.RosenL. D.CheeverN. A.LimA. F. (2015). Causes, effects, and practicalities of everyday multitasking. Developmental Review, 35, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.005
12.
CraikF. I. M.TulvingE. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
13.
CyrusE.ClarkeR.HadleyD.BursacZ.TrepkaM. J.DévieuxJ. G.BagciU.Furr-HoldenD.CoudrayM.MarianoY.KiplagatS.NoelI.RaveloG. J.PaleyM.WagnerE. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on African American communities in the United States. MedRxiv, 4(1), 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.15.20096552
14.
Dehi ArooghM.Mohammadi ShahboulaghiF. (2020). Social participation of older adults: A concept analysis. International Journal of Community Based Nursing and Midwifery, 8(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.30476/IJCBNM.2019.82222.1055
15.
DillardR. L.PerkinsM.HartA.LiC.WincekR.JonesD.HackneyM. E. (2018). Research advocacy training program benefits diverse older adults in participation, self-efficacy and attitudes toward research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 12(4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2018.0062
16.
FataniT. H. (2020). Student satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 396. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02310-2
17.
GarfinD. R. (2020). Technology as a coping tool during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Implications and recommendations. Stress and Health, 36(4), 555–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2975
18.
HackneyM. E.ByersC.ButlerG.SweeneyM.RossbachL.BozzorgA. (2015). Adapted tango improves mobility, motor-cognitive function, and gait but not cognition in older adults in independent living. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 63(10), 2105–2113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13650
19.
HahnT.RahmanH. U. (2016). Remote access programs to better integrate individuals with disabilities [Conference session]. 2016 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT), Atlanta, GA, United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT.2016.7836176
20.
HansenJ. D.ReichJ. (2015). Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science, 350(6265), 1245–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3782
21.
HartA. R.DillardR.PerkinsM. M.VaughanC. P.KinlawK.McKayJ. L.Waldrop-ValverdeD.HagenK.WincekR. C.HackneyM. E. (2017). The DREAMS team: Creating community partnerships through research advocacy training for diverse older adults. Educational Gerontology, 43(9), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2017.1321449
22.
JonesM. L.UlicnyG. R.PowellL. K. (1987). The promise and problems of high technology. Mental Retardation, 25(1), 43–44.
23.
KaiserB. L.ThomasG. R.BowersB. J. (2017). A case study of engaging hard-to-reach participants in the research process: Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategies (CARDS)®. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21753
24.
KayeH. S.YeagerP.ReedM. (2008). Disparities in usage of assistive technology among people with disabilities. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 20(4), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2008.10131946
25.
KesselsR. P. C.van den BergE.RuisC.BrandsA. M. A. (2008). The backward span of the Corsi Block-Tapping Task and its association with the WAIS-III Digit Span. Assessment, 15(4), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108315611
26.
KuczmarskiM. F.BeydounM. A.CotugnaN.DanielsL.MasonM. A.ZondermanA. B.EvansM. K. (2016). Literacy contributes to greater higher diet quality in a socioeconomically diverse urban prospective cohort. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 31(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/TIN.0000000000000057
27.
LövdénM.FratiglioniL.GlymourM. M.LindenbergerU.Tucker-DrobE. M. (2020). Education and cognitive functioning across the life span. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 21(1), 6–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620920576
MukhalalatiB. A.TaylorA. (2019). Adult learning theories in context: A quick guide for healthcare professional educators. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120519840332
30.
NasreddineZ. S.PhillipsN. A.BédirianV.CharbonneauS.WhiteheadV.CollinI.CummingsJ. L.ChertkowH. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
31.
National Research Council (US) Panel on Race, Ethnicity, and Health in Later Life. (2004). Critical perspectives on racial and ethnic differences in health in late life (AndersonN. B.BulataoR. A.CohenB., Eds.). National Academies Press (US). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25532/
32.
O’GradyL. A.WittemanH.WathenC. N. (2008). The experiential health information processing model: Supporting collaborative web-based patient education. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-58
33.
PatelS. Y.MehrotraA.HuskampH. A.Uscher-PinesL.GanguliI.BarnettM. L. (2021). Trends in outpatient care delivery and telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(3), 388–391. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5928
34.
PerkinsM. M.HartA.DillardR. L.WincekR. C.JonesD. E.HackneyM. E. (2019). A formative qualitative evaluation to inform implementation of a research participation enhancement and advocacy training program for diverse seniors: The DREAMS program. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 38(7), 959–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817735395
35.
PerryR. E.BrarenS. H.Rincón-CortésM.Brandes-AitkenA. N.ChopraD.OpendakM.AlberiniC. M.SullivanR. M.BlairC. (2019). Enhancing executive functions through social interactions: Causal evidence using a cross-species model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2472. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02472
36.
RainvilleC.LepageE.GauthierS.KergoatM.-J.BellevilleS. (2012). Executive function deficits in persons with mild cognitive impairment: A study with a Tower of London task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2011.639298
37.
RanganathanP.PrameshC. S.BuyseM. (2015). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Clinical versus statistical significance. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 6(3), 169–170. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.159943
38.
RealdonO.RossettoF.NalinM.BaroniI.CabinioM.FioravantiR.SaibeneF. L.AlberoniM.MantovaniF.RomanoM.NemniR.BaglioF. (2016). Technology-enhanced multi-domain at home continuum of care program with respect to usual care for people with cognitive impairment: The Ability-TelerehABILITation study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 425. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1132-y
39.
RusticusS.LovatoC. (2014). Impact of sample size and variability on the power and type I error rates of equivalence tests: A simulation study. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 19, 1–10.
40.
Sánchez-CubilloI.PeriáñezJ. A.Adrover-RoigD.Rodríguez-SánchezJ. M.Ríos-LagoM.TirapuJ.BarcelóF. (2009). Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 15(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709090626
41.
SeidlerR. D.BernardJ. A.BurutoluT. B.FlingB. W.GordonM. T.GwinJ. T.KwakY.LippsD. B. (2010). Motor control and aging: Links to age-related brain structural, functional, and biochemical effects. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(5), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.005
SmithP. J.PotterG. G.McLarenM. E.BlumenthalJ. A. (2013). Impact of aerobic exercise on neurobehavioral outcomes. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 6(3), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2013.06.008
44.
SteptoeA.ZaninottoP. (2020). Lower socioeconomic status and the acceleration of aging: An outcome-wide analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 14911–14917. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915741117
45.
SyedS. T.GerberB. S.SharpL. K. (2013). Traveling towards disease: Transportation barriers to health care access. Journal of Community Health, 38(5), 976–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1
46.
Tickle-DegnenL. (2013). Nuts and bolts of conducting feasibility studies. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(2), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2013.006270
47.
ValentineJ. C.McHughC. M. (2007). The effects of attrition on baseline comparability in randomized experiments in education: A meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.3.268
48.
VaportzisE.ClausenM. G.GowA. J. (2017). Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: A focus group study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01687
49.
VoineaC.VicăC.MihailovE.SavulescuJ. (2020). The internet as cognitive enhancement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2345–2362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00210-8
50.
WillisS. L.TennstedtS. L.MarsiskeM.BallK.EliasJ.KoepkeK. M.MorrisJ. N.RebokG. W.UnverzagtF. W.StoddardA. M.WrightE. (2006). Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(23), 2805–2814. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.23.2805
51.
WolfM. S.WilsonE. A. H.RappD. N.WaiteK. R.BocchiniM. V.DavisT. C.RuddR. E. (2009). Literacy and learning in health care. Pediatrics, 124(Suppl. 3), S275–S281. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-1162C
52.
WrightD. B.KlumppA. (2004). Collaborative inhibition is due to the product, not the process, of recalling in groups. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1080–1083. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196740
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
