Background. Stroke patients with a low memory self-efficacy (MSE) report more memory complaints than patients with a high MSE. Objective. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a memory-training program on MSE in the chronic phase after stroke and to identify which patients benefit most from the MSE training program. Methods. In a randomized controlled trial, the effectiveness of the MSE training program (experimental group) was compared with a peer support program (control group) in chronic stroke patients. The primary outcome was MSE, measured using the Metamemory-In-Adulthood Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included depression, quality of life, and objective verbal memory capacity. Changes in outcomes over the intervention period were compared between both groups. Demographic and clinical variables were studied as potential predictors of MSE outcome in the experimental group. Results. In total, 153 patients were included: mean age = 58 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.7), 54.9% male, and mean of 54 months (SD = 37) after stroke. Of these, 77 were assigned to the training and 76 to the control group. Improvement of MSE (B = 0.40; P =.019) was significantly greater in the training than in the control group. No significant differences were found for the secondary outcomes. An increase in MSE after training was predicted by a younger age (B = -0.033; P =.006) and a better memory capacity (B = 0.043; P =.009), adjusted for baseline MSE. Conclusions. MSE can be improved by the MSE training program for stroke patients. Younger patients and patients with a better memory capacity benefit most from the MSE training program (Dutch Trial Register: NTR-TC 1656).

memory self-efficacy, memory training, rehabilitation, stroke,
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine

Aben, L, Heijenbrok-Kal, M.H, van Loon, E.M.P, Groet, E, Ponds, R.W.H.M, van Busschbach, J.J, & Ribbers, G.M. (2013). Training memory self-efficacy in the chronic stage after stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 27(2), 110–117. doi:10.1177/1545968312455222