Effects of Reminiscence Therapy on Cognitive Function in Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
Huang, X., Ye, C., et al. (2025).
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 139, 106021.
<div>This systematic review explores the effects of reminiscence therapy on cognitive function in older adults (i.e., aged 60 and over) with cognitive impairments due to any etiology. </div>
Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Foundation, Ministry of Education (China)
From database inception to October 2024
<div>Randomized controlled trials</div>
18 (14 within the meta-analysis)
<div>Overall, following reminiscence therapy, there was a significant improvement in cognitive function in older adults with cognitive impairment (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.15). Subgroup analyses revealed:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><strong>Diagnosis: </strong>There was a significant effect for adults both with (SMD = 1.15) and without (SMD = 1.56) dementia. There was a smaller, but significant, treatment effect for individuals with unspecified cognitive impairment/neurocognitive disorders (SMD = 0.46).</li>
<li><strong>Format:</strong> While treatment effects were seen for both formats, greater improvement was seen for group (SMD = 1.56) versus individual (SMD = 0.45) interventions. Interventions with group sized of six or more (SMD = 1.63) demonstrated a stronger treatment effect that those with six of fewer (SMD = 1.31).</li>
<li><strong>Dosage: </strong>
<ul>
<li>Treatments delivered once a week (SMD = 1.37) had greater effects that those delivered twice a week (SMD = 0.43). </li>
<li>Sessions lasting 30-45 minutes (SMD = 1.29) and those lasting 50 or more minutes (SMD = 0.93) both had moderate treatment effects.</li>
<li>While the greatest effects were seen for interventions lasting 12 weeks (SMD = 1.60), positive effects were also reported for those last four to six weeks (SMD = 1.24) and 8 week (SMD = 1.33). </li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<div>The authors of this review recommend interpreting these results with caution, as there was high overall heterogeneity, modest sample sizes, differences between studies regarding outcome measures, and relatively low methodological rigor for six of the 14 included studies. </div>
</div>
