ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Comparing the benefits of Cognitive Stimulation Therapy with an adapted collaborative version on traditional outcomes, loneliness, and socioemotional skills: a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Definitional Competence: Construction, Validation, and Applications of the Co.De. Scale.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- Exploratory research on cognitive fluency design for the older adults through Nostalgia-based empowerment.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) is among the psychosocial interventions with strongest evidence of efficacy for the treatment of dementia. It has been argued that people with dementia (PwD) can also benefit from collaboration and teamwork with peers. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the benefits of a new Collaborative CST (C-CST) protocol, vis-à-vis the Standard CST (S-CST), on traditional and underexplored, psychosocial and socioemotional outcomes. Methods: In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 28 PwD (mean age = 87 ± 5.74 years) from six Italian residential facilities and randomly allocated them to either S-CST or C-CST. We examined the benefits in traditional outcomes (i.e., global cognitive functioning, mood, and psychological and behavioral symptoms), as well as in overlooked psychosocial outcomes (i.e., social and emotional loneliness) and socioemotional skills [i.e., cognitive and affective theory of mind (ToM) and definitional competence of emotions]. Results: Results indicated that both C-CST and S-CST maintained PwD mood but that only S-CST supported global cognitive functioning and mitigated psychological and behavioral symptoms at postintervention. Both CST protocols also reduced social loneliness (but not emotional loneliness) and ameliorated the definitional competence of emotions at postintervention, with C-CST showing larger effect sizes compared to S-CST. Only S-CST fostered cognitive ToM (but not the affective one) at postintervention. Conclusion: Different CST protocols provided nuanced benefits across traditional, psychosocial, and socioemotional outcomes. S-CST remains the only protocol capable of promoting benefits in cognition and key dementia-related symptoms, whereas the new C-CST has emerged as a promising and easily implementable protocol with the potential to alleviate loneliness and support some socioemotional skills in PwD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.