• Military medicine · Aug 2024

    Cognition and Functional Capacity: An Initial Comparison of Veteran and Non-Veteran Older Adults.

    • Jacqueline E Maye, Colin A Depp, Ellen E Lee, Amber V Keller, Ho-Cheol Kim, Dilip V Jeste, and Elizabeth W Twamley.
    • VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA 92161, USA.
    • Mil Med. 2024 Aug 30; 189 (9-10): 186418701864-1870.

    IntroductionThe U.S. Military Veterans aged 65 and older comprise an estimated 43% of the 22 million living Veterans in the United States. Veterans have high rates of physical, psychiatric, and social challenges, but it is not known whether Veteran status confers additional risk for cognitive or functional impairments in later life. Thus, this investigation specifically compared older Veterans with their non-Veteran peers in cognitive functioning and performance-based functional capacity.Materials And MethodsParticipants (N = 110; 29 Veterans and 81 non-Veterans) were part of a larger longitudinal study on biopsychosocial functioning in independently living older adult residents of a Continuing Care Senior Housing Community. The University of California San Diego Institutional Review Board approved the study and all participants provided written informed consent. Participants provided demographic and mental health information and were administered a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Functional capacity was assessed using the UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment-Brief (UPSA-B), which uses financial and communication role-plays to assess everyday functioning skills. Neuropsychological scores were appropriately normed prior to analysis. Multivariate Analyses of Variances with post hoc t-tests and an Analysis of Covariance were used to examine neuropsychological and functional capacity differences, respectively, between Veterans and non-Veterans.ResultsVeterans did not differ from non-Veterans in educational attainment (16.4 years versus 15.5 years, P = 0.110), but they were significantly older (mean age 86.9 years ± 5.7, versus 81.74 years ± 6.53; P < 0.001) and were more likely to be male (X2 [1, N = 110] = 62.39, P < 0.001). Thus, though neuropsychological norms already accounted for demographic differences in our participants, age and sex were controlled in the Analysis of Covariance predicting UPSA-B score from Veteran status. Results suggested that, compared to non-Veterans, Veterans had significantly worse performance in the list learning portion of a test of verbal memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, Total Recall; t = 2.56, P = 0.012, d = 0.56). Veterans and non-Veterans did not significantly differ in performance on the delayed recall portion of the verbal learning test and did not differ on a cognitive screening test (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) or on measures of premorbid intellectual functioning (Wide Range Achievement Test-4 Reading), language (Boston Naming Test, Verbal Fluency), visual memory (Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised), attention/working memory (WAIS-IV Digit Span), processing speed (WAIS-IV Digit Symbol Coding), executive function (Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Trails and Color-Word Test), or functional capacity (UPSA-B). Because our examination of multiple outcomes might have inflated Type I error, we performed a post hoc adjustment of P values using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures and the group difference in verbal learning remained significant.ConclusionsDespite largely similar function in most domains, Veterans performed significantly more poorly in verbal list learning than their non-Veteran peers. Additional attention should be given to the understanding, assessment, and possible treatment of learning and memory differences in older Veterans, as this may be an area in which Veteran status confers additional risk or vulnerability to decline. This is the first study to compare objective neuropsychological and functional performance between older (age 65+) US Veterans and non-Veterans.Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2024. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.