ArticleFrontiers in aging2026
Cognitive and behavioral benefits of newspaper reading in community-dwelling older adults: a feasibility randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There are reports suggesting that reading newspapers is an accessible daily intellectual activity that may help prevent neurocognitive disorders, while no prospective studies have accurately investigated its effectiveness on cognitive function. Methods: This study is a randomized controlled trial designed to explore the effects of reading newspapers on cognitive function and activity levels in community-dwelling older adults. The study included 163 non-subscribers aged 60 years or older; after screening, 64 participants were selected. Participants were randomly assigned to either the newspaper reading group (n = 31) or the non-reading group (n = 32), and a 26-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. One person was disqualified because they could not be contacted. The newspaper reading group was instructed to read the newspaper at least four days a week, and compliance was verified by checking entries on activity log sheets. In addition, both groups were assessed before and after the trial. The primary outcome was cognitive function assessed using the Japanese Version of the MONTREAL COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT (MoCA-J). Secondary outcomes included the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE-J), the Japanese version of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15-J), the Life-Space Assessment (LSA), and the Vitality Index. Results: When comparing the changes in these test items after 26 weeks, the newspaper reading group showed significantly better results than the non-reading group for the MoCA-J (difference: 1.47 [95% CI: 0.31-2.63], p = 0.013), GDS-15-J (difference: -1.85 [95% CI: -3.01 to -0.68], p = 0.002), and LSA (difference: 14.74 [95% CI: 7.13-22.35], p < 0.001). A significant trend was also observed in the newspaper reading group for the MMSE-J (difference: 2.46 [95% CI: 1.34-3.58], p = 0.065). Discussion: These findings suggest that reading newspapers is a low-cost, self-directed intervention that can be easily incorporated into preventive care for community-dwelling older adults and may have beneficial effects on cognitive function and activity levels.
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.