Content uploaded by Heather Becker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heather Becker
Content may be subject to copyright.
Alcohol use and older adults: A little goes a long way
Graham J McDougall Jr, RN, PhD, FAAN, Heather Becker, PhD, Carol L Delville, MSN, Phillip
W Vaughan, MA, and Taylor W Acee, MA
School of Nursing, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America
Abstract
We examined the relationships between alcohol use, cognitive and affective variables, and the
potential differential benefits of training for older adults drinkers and non-drinkers who participated
in a randomized trial implemented between 2001–2006. Participants, who were living independently
in the community, were randomly assigned to either twelve hours of memory training or health
promotion classes. Outcomes included depression, health, cognition, verbal, visual, memory, and
performance-based IADLs. The sample was 79% female, 17% Hispanic and 12% African-American.
The typical participant had an average age of 75 years with 13 years of education. In the memory
intervention group, there were 135 individuals (63 drinkers, 72 non-drinkers). In the health promotion
condition, there were 129 individuals (58 drinkers and 71 non-drinkers). At baseline, drinkers scored
higher on cognition, verbal memory, and lower on depression than non-drinkers. Alcohol use was
positively related to physical health at baseline as measured by the Physical Component Summary
Score of the Medical Outcomes Health Scale (SF-36). We found significant effects for the
time*drinking*treatment group interaction in the repeated measures ANCOVA for the Mini Mental
Status Examination, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, and the SF-36 Mental Health sub-scale. The
time*drinking*group interactions were not statistically significant for any of the other outcomes;
This study demonstrated that older adults benefited from targeted psychosocial interventions on
affective, cognitive and functional outcomes. In addition, the SeniorWISE study provides empirical
support to the research evidence emphasizing the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption
in older adults.
Keywords
Elderly; alcohol use; psychosocial intervention; memory training; cognitive function; instrumental
activities of daily living
INTRODUCTION
The recommended 2003 Healthy Eating Pyramid released by the United States Department of
Agriculture now includes the moderate daily consumption of alcohol, unless contraindicated,
as a ‘brick’ within the healthy choices (1). This change in the food pyramid was influenced by
studies that documented the preventive cognitive and physical health benefits of moderate
alcohol consumption (2–4).
Depending upon the setting and quantity of consumption, moderate alcohol use among adults
over age 65 has been reported to be between 23% and 31% (5–6). Older adults are more likely
to engage in the moderate regular use of alcohol rather than in binge or problem drinking (7–
Correspondence: Graham J. McDougall, University of Texas at Austin School of Nursing, 1700 Red River, Austin, TX 78701, United
States. Tel: 512-471-7936; Fax: 512-471-3688; gmcdougall@mail.nur.utexas.edu.
Financial Disclosure. None of the authors have any conflict of interest related to this work.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
Published in final edited form as:
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. 2007 December 1; 6(4): 431. doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.6-431.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
8). Older adult drinkers including almost equal numbers of Hispanic and non-Hispanic white
men and women obtained better cognitive test scores than did those participants who abstained
(9). Women who consumed moderate amounts of alcohol had higher levels of cognitive
function than non-drinkers and were less likely to develop cognitive impairment over a follow-
up period of 24 to 48 months (10–11).
The findings from numerous health intervention studies have demonstrated that such health-
related activity as exercise, mental stimulation, and social engagement may prevent disability
and improve health and function (12–13). The Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent
and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE) trials demonstrated that mental stimulation through targeted
cognitive training improves cognitive abilities and prevents the cognitive decline that would
have occurred in older adults without dementia, with the gains being maintained for 5 years
(14). McDougall and his associates (15) found that including content on stress inoculation,
health promotion, memory self-efficacy, and memory strategy in a psychosocial intervention
study assisted community dwelling elderly to maintain their cognitive function over 2 years,
and the intervention was of most benefit to the minority elders with low literacy. Alcohol
consumption, however, does not uniformly protect older adults and may lead to mental health
problems, cognitive impairment, and dementia (16–17). Depression and problems with alcohol
vary by gender. In women the depression tends to precede alcohol use, whereas in men alcohol
use typically precedes depression (18). A subsequent study failed to confirm this finding,
however (19)—for females; depressive symptoms predicted subsequent alcohol problems over
3 and 4 years, but not at 7 years; whereas no evidence was found for such a relation in males.
Elders admitted to a psychiatric facility with a dual diagnosis of depression and substance abuse
were 6 times more likely to make a suicide attempt before admission, and this increased risk
of suicide continues through 85 years of age (20). Gazmararian and associates reported that
8.8% of moderate drinkers experienced depressive symptoms, whereas 15% of non-drinkers
and 18.5% of heavy drinkers reported depression (21). The results of that study were supported
6 years later by Kirchner and associates (5) who identified an incidence of depression as 15%
in older adults that drank moderately compared with non-drinkers (21%), or heavy drinkers
(25%).
In the present secondary analysis, we examined the relations between alcohol use and cognitive
performance, instrumental activities, depression, and health in a group of nondemented older
adults. Furthermore, because only two intervention studies focused on the differential benefits
of a psychosocial intervention, we were interested in the possible differential benefits of
memory and health training between drinkers and non-drinkers over time (22–23).
METHODS
A Phase III randomized clinical trial tested two interventions—memory training versus health
promotion. In the community, the study was advertised as SeniorWISE (Wisdom Is Simply
Exploration). Participants received 12 hours of classroom learning content and met twice a
week for 1.5 hours each; lectures were delivered with PowerPoint presentations. Individuals
were post tested within 2 weeks after completing the classes.
Interventions
Health promotion—The health intervention emphasized successful aging based on three
focus groups conducted in the community with older adults. The topics included Exercise,
Spirituality and Health, Alternative Medicine, Weight Management, Getting the Most from
Your Doctor Visit, Caring for the Caretaker, Healing Foods, Drug Interactions, Osteoporosis,
Maintaining Relationships, Health Myths, Consumer Fraud, Nutrition, Leisure Activities,
McDougall et al. Page 2
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Writing Family Stories, Health Monitoring Tests for Home Use, and Buying Drugs in Foreign
Countries.
Memory training—The memory-training curriculum emphasized stress and relaxation,
memory strategies for everyday activities, confidence building, and problems and expectations
related to aging memory. Based on self-efficacy theory, performance accomplishments,
practice, homework assignments, encouragement, and persuasion were woven into the
classroom lectures by the facilitator, a septuagenarian licensed counselling psychologist.
Study sample
A total of 346 independent adults were recruited from a metropolitan area in Central Texas via
print and TV media, as well as by direct recruitment at city-run senior activity centers, churches,
health fairs and festivals. A total of 81 individuals were excluded, 21 did not meet inclusion
criteria, 38 declined, and 22 were couples, of which the female spouse was excluded from the
testing so that adequate numbers of males would be represented in the sample. The final sample
(N=264) was 71% Non-Hispanic White, 17% Hispanic, and 11% African American. The
average age was 75 years. The majority of the participants were female (77%). Table 1
describes the demographics of the participants in each group.
Randomization to the memory or health intervention occurred within each of 9 different
community sites and consisted of 11 groups. One hundred thirty-five individuals were assigned
to the memory and 130 were assigned to the health groups. Each intervention was delivered in
a small group format. No group was smaller than 4 individuals or larger than 15; however we
strove for an average group composed of 12 individuals. The memory intervention and health
promotion group did not differ significantly at baseline on either the study variables or the
demographics.
Screening and eligibility
We evaluated sensory loss and visual and hearing acuity with an in-person eligibility screening
by evaluator observation and by a self-report checklist developed for this study. Other
eligibility criteria included age (≥ 65), ability to speak and understand English, and reliable
transportation. Diagnoses such as Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia, Hodgkin’s disease,
neuroblastoma, or cancer of the liver, lung, or brain were considered exclusionary criteria.
Participants were also screened with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) with scores
> 23, and were also required to pass Trails A and/or Trails B at or above the 10th percentile for
their-age group.
Study variables
Alcohol consumption—On the health questionnaire, we asked participants to self-report
whether they drank alcohol with a Yes/No response to the interviewer. If they answered in the
affirmative, then we asked them to state how many drinks they consumed in a given period of
time, usually a day, a week, or a month. We did not offer the participants any prompts to indicate
comparisons among the types or quantities of alcohol, such as beer, wine, spirits, etc.
Cognition—Cognitive function was evaluated with the Mini Mental State Exam, a screening
instrument with a range of possible scores between 0 and 30. Generally, a score between 23
and 30 classifies an individual into the nonimpaired range. We included individuals with scores
greater than or equal to 23, although eight minority participants were admitted with MMSE
scores ≥ 20.
McDougall et al. Page 3
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Verbal Memory—Verbal memory performance was tested with the Hopkins Verbal Learning
Test-Revised (HVLT-R), which assesses immediate recall, delayed recall, and recognition
memory. The Delayed Recall Subscale, was used for this analyses.
Visual Memory—Visual memory performance was determined with the Brief Visuospatial
Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R), in which the individual is asked to reproduce a series of
geometric designs.
Everyday Memory—The Rivermead Everyday Behavioral Memory test bridges laboratory-
based measures of memory and assessments obtained by self-report and observation. The
standardized profile score (SPS) has a possible range from 0–24.
Instrumental Activities—The Direct Assessment of Functional Status (DAFS) measured
performance in the instrumental activities of daily living. The DAFS included specific tasks
such as addressing a letter, writing a check, balancing the check register, identifying and
calculating money, making change from a grocery purchase, reading a prescription label and
dialing the pharmacy to order a refill, dialing a telephone number, and remembering a grocery
list given orally given and reading from the book. The DAFS has demonstrated high interrater
and test-retest reliabilities for both patients presenting to a memory disorder clinic (English
and Spanish speaking) and for normal controls.
Depression—The Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Scale (CES-D) evaluated depressive
symptoms. Somatic complaints are emphasized on this measure to which individuals respond
on a 4-point Likert scale.
Health—The Medical Outcomes Study Health Scale. (SF-36) was our measure of health status
from the individual’s point of view. Individuals respond to 36 items on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from poor to excellent and from much worse too much better. In addition to the eight
health subscales, we have also included the Physical and Mental component summary scales
(24).
Statistical analysis
For each dependent variable of interest, we sought to answer two major questions. First, we
wanted to know how alcohol use might be associated with participants’ baseline scores on
outcomes related to affect, cognition, memory, instrumental activities, and mental and physical
health. To answer this question, we regressed each outcome of interest at baseline on age,
education, ethnicity (with separate dummy variables indicating Black or Hispanic status), and
alcohol use. Alcohol use was coded as a dichotomous variable (drinker = 1, non-drinker = 0).
Some of the results were previously reported for men and women separately, but here we
present similar analyses with both genders combined (25–26).
Second, we wanted to determine the differential benefits, if any, of memory training for
drinkers vs. non-drinkers over time (i.e., from baseline to post-classes). This research question
was investigated by conducting separate repeated measures ANCOVAs for each dependent
variable from baseline to post-classes, controlling for age, education, and ethnicity (again with
separate dummy variables indicating Black or Hispanic status). Alcohol use (drinker = 1,
nondrinker = 0) and treatment (memory group = 1, health group = 0) were between subjects
factors, providing tests involving the interaction of these two factors with time (i.e., baseline
and post-class). The test of the interaction between time, alcohol use, and treatment was of
primary concern because it indicated whether there might be differential benefits of training
from baseline to post-classes.
McDougall et al. Page 4
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
RESULTS
The analytic sample consisted of 265 randomized participants at baseline and 249 at post-test.
In the memory intervention group, 135 individuals (63 drinkers, 72 non-drinkers) participated.
In the health promotion condition, 129 individuals (58 drinkers and 71 non-drinkers)
participated (see table 1). Ninety-four percent of participants completed the memory treatment,
and 87% completed the health intervention (six or more of the eight training sessions).
Consequently, the analyses of differential benefits of training described below exclude the 16
individuals who did not have post-intervention scores.
Drinking and baseline performance
Of the sixty male participants, 35 (58%) reported some degree of alcohol consumption; of the
182 females, 43% acknowledged drinking alcohol. Drinkers in both the health-intervention
and cognitive-intervention groups were more likely to be married, male, and non-Hispanic
whites. Whereas the average age was similar across the groups, those who drank had a higher
education level. The means and standard deviations for study variables are shown in table 2.
Drinkers generally outscored non-drinkers except on the CES-D, where a high score indicates
more depressive symptoms. Many of these differences on the SF-36 tended to be more
pronounced at baseline than following the intervention, particularly in the memory group.
Memory performance measures
Table 3 presents standardized regression coefficients for each dependent variable of interest
at baseline, and these beta weights provide effect estimates for predictors in each equation.
Note that including age, education, ethnicity, gender, and marital status variables as predictors
along with alcohol usage is the same as controlling for these variables. Self-reported alcohol
use was a statistically significant, positive predictor of performance on the cognition (MMSE)
and verbal memory (HVLT). Drinkers would be expected to score approximately 0.62 points
higher than non-drinkers on the MMSE and 5.19 points higher on the HVLT (p<.05 and p<.
01, respectively). Though not statistically significant, alcohol was also a positive predictor of
scores for visual memory (BVMT), everyday memory (Rivermead SPS score), and
instrumental activities (DAFS).
Depressive symptoms
Self-reported alcohol consumption was a statistically significant, negative predictor of scores
for depression (p<.01). Drinkers would be expected to score approximately 2.80 points lower
than nondrinkers on this measure of depression, net of the covariates in the model. Twenty-
three percent of non-drinkers, compared with 12% of drinkers scored 16 or above on the CESD,
the cut-point for depressive symptomatology.
Physical and mental health—Alcohol use was positively related to participants’ physical
health at baseline as measured by the SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score (p < .01).
Drinkers would be expected to score 4.56 points higher than non-drinkers. Alcohol use was
positively related to participant’s mental health as measured by the SF-36 Mental Component
Summary Score, but this was not statistically significant (p = .33).
Possible differential benefits of training—We found statistical significance for the
time*drinking*treatment group effect in the repeated measures ANCOVA for only three
variables: the MMSE, the HVLT, and the SF-36 Mental Health sub-scale. Graphs of these
interactions over time are shown in figure 1. While the pattern varies somewhat across these
three outcomes, non-drinkers in the health intervention tended to score lowest. On the two
memory outcome measures, non-drinkers in the memory condition are gaining, but do not quite
McDougall et al. Page 5
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
catch up with the drinkers in this group. The drinkers in the memory intervention decreased
their SF-36 Mental Health scores more than the other groups from baseline to end of classes.
DISCUSSION
In national samples, 23% to 31% of older adults have reported consuming moderate amounts
of alcohol (5–6), and this result often depends on the type of recruitment site. Of the participants
in the SeniorWISE study, 43% of females and 58% of male participants reported drinking
moderate amounts of alcohol. Older adults are more likely to engage in moderate regular use
of alcohol rather than binge or problem drinking, and the majority of our sample reported
similar use patterns (6–7). The majority (65%) of the non-drinker women in Senior WISE were
minorities. As previous research has suggested that Hispanic respondents may under-report
drinking, this subgroup may not adequately represent their cohort.
When controlling for age, gender, education, marital status, and race/ethnicity, drinking status
was a statistically significant predictor in half the 16 baseline analyses. In all cases, drinkers
outperformed non-drinkers. Although few of the interactions between drinking status and
intervention group were statistically significant across time, it appears as though the abstainers
in the memory group are catching up to the drinkers as a result of the memory intervention,
whereas in general, drinkers in the health group seem to benefit more than abstainers in the
health group, either in terms of gaining or not declining.
The SeniorWISE participants scored higher on all subscales of the SF-36 compared with the
other community-based elderly (2,24). However, we should note that previous studies have
included clinic samples, whereas our participants were recruited from the community and were
living independently. Our findings on health are supported by large-scale national and
international samples of older adults whose alcohol consumption was in the moderate range
(9–11).
Nationally, 9% to 15%% of moderate drinkers experienced depressive symptoms (5,21).
Among SeniorWISE drinkers, 12% had CES-D scores above 16, the cut-off for depressive
symptomatology. Other investigators have reported that abstainers and heavy drinkers were
more likely than moderate drinkers to identify symptoms of depression and anxiety (6,24). In
the current study, 23% of the non-drinkers had CES-D scores above 16.
Strengths and limitations
A major strength of this study was the inclusion of a triethnic sample of minority elderly with
21 (10%) African-Americans, 34 (17%), Hispanics, and 77 (29%) males. The convenience
sample was highly motivated to take action for their self-reported memory concerns. Alcohol
use was reported with a simple question that was part of the larger health questionnaire, and
because an interviewer was administering this measure, there may have been responses that
were socially desirable. The participants in this study were a robust group of older adult
volunteers with an average age of 75 years with 13 years of education, with many individuals
working and volunteering in the community.
A major strength of the SeniorWISE study was the comprehensive cognitive and memory
testing battery implemented over twenty-four month study period. Each testing might have
taken between two to three hours. Even though previous studies included large samples and
longitudinal designs, cognitive function was evaluated in two of the four studies with screening
instruments, either the MMSE or the Telephone Instrument for Cognitive Status (TICS) for a
general measure of cognition, whereas this study included a comprehensive battery of
neuropsychological measures (10–11). We extend this research by utilizing multiple memory
measures, including everyday, verbal, and visual. We noted that the two memory performance
McDougall et al. Page 6
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
measures in which drinkers scored significantly higher than nondrinkers involve the auditory
presentation of stimuli. Future research should investigate why drinking status might be more
related to some memory measures than to others.
The results of this study could help to deepen our understanding of the value of moderate
alcohol consumption for older adults. We found that the affective, cognitive, and functional
outcomes did not differ and were therefore not intervention-specific. Neither the drinkers nor
the non-drinkers, regardless of their assignment to the health group or to the memory group,
tended to improve based on their baseline alcohol consumption. Two studies of community-
residing older adults that found differential benefits of training were available for comparison.
Losada and colleagues (23) found that the family caregiver group that was taught cognitive
behavioral skills rather than problem-solving skills to deal with a relative having dementia
reported less stress and behavioral problems. Katula et al (22) demonstrated that a
psychological empowerment intervention added to traditional strength training had a positive
influence on social cognitive outcomes.
This study extends the empirical support that psychosocial interventions targeted to older adults
have demonstrated—namely, that outcomes focused on health promotion, mental stimulation,
social engagement, and leisure enjoyment may prevent cognitive decline, improve health, and
prevent functional decline (12–13,22). In addition, the SeniorWISE study provides empirical
support to the cognitive aging literature, emphasizing the health benefits of moderate alcohol
consumption in older adults.
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by Grant R01 AG15384 from the National Institutes on Aging. Concerning author
contributions: Graham J. McDougall Jr responsible for content, literature review, study concept and design, acquisition
of data, analysis and interpretation of the data, preparation of the manuscript, supervision, and obtaining funding,
critical manuscript review, final manuscript approval. Heather Becker: design, statistical expertise, accuracy, analysis
and interpretation of data, manuscript refinement. Carol L. Delville: manuscript drafting, literature review, data
analysis and interpretation, critical manuscript review Phillip W. Vaughan: statistical expertise, accuracy, analysis and
interpretation of data, manuscript drafting, data extraction, critical manuscript review. Taylor W. Acee: data collection,
data extraction analysis and interpretation, critical manuscript review. All authors contributed to the writing of the
manuscript. Sponsor’s role: None.
References
1. Willett W, Stampfer M. Rebuilding the Food Pyramid. Sci Am 2003;288(1):64. [PubMed: 12506426]
2. Blow, FC. The spectrum of alcohol interventions for older adults. In: Lisansky Gromberg, ES.;
Hededus, AM.; Zucker, RA., editors. Alcohol problems and aging. Bethesda, MD: US Dept Human
Serv; 1998. p. 373-96.
3. McGuire L, Ajani U, Ford E. Cognitive functioning in late life: the impact of moderate alcohol
consumption. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17(2):93–9. [PubMed: 17027288]
4. Mukamal K, Kuller L, Fitzpatrick A, Longstreth W, Mittleman M, Siscovick D. Prospective study of
alcohol consumption and risk of dementia in older adults. JAMA 2003;289(11):1405–13. [PubMed:
12636463]
5. Kirchner J, Zubritsky C, Cody M, Coakley E, Chen H, Ware J, et al. Alcohol consumption among
older adults in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22(1):92–7. [PubMed: 17351846]
6. Resnick B, Perry D, Applebaum G, Armstrong L, Cotterman M, Dillman S, et al. The impact of alcohol
use in community-dwelling older adults. J Community Health Nurs 2003;20(3):135–45. [PubMed:
12925311]
7. Wiscott R, Kopera-Fry K, Bogovic A. Binge drinking in later life: Comparing young-old and old-old
social drinkers. Psychol Addict Behav 2002;16(3):252–5. [PubMed: 12236460]
McDougall et al. Page 7
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
8. Blow FC, Walton MA, Barry KL, Coyne JC, Mudd SA, Copeland. The relationship between alcohol
problems and health functioning of older adults in primary care settings. J Am Geriat Soc 2000;48(7):
769–74. [PubMed: 10894315]
9. Lindeman R, Wayne S, Baumgartner R, Garry P. Cognitive function in drinkers compared to abstainers
in the New Mexico Elder Health Survey. J Gerontol A Bio Sci Med Sci 2005;60A(8):1065–70.
[PubMed: 16127114]
10. Espeland M, Gu L, Masaki K, Langer R, Coker L, Stefanick M, et al. Association between reported
alcohol intake and cognition: results from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. Am J
Epidemiol 2005;161(3):228–38. [PubMed: 15671255]
11. Stampfer M, Kang J, Chen J, Cherry R, Grodstein F. Effects of moderate alcohol consumption on
cognitive function in women. New Engl J Med 2005;352(3):245–53. [PubMed: 15659724]
12. Cattan M, White M, Bond J, Learmouth A. Preventing social isolation and loneliness among older
people: a systematic review of health promotion interventions. Ageing Soc 2005;25(1):41–67.
13. Phelan E, Williams B, Penninx B, LoGerfo J, Leveille S. Activities of daily living function and
disability in older adults in a randomized trial of the health enhancement program. J Gerontol A Bio
Sci Med Sci 2004;59(8):838–43. [PubMed: 15345735]
14. Willis S, Tennstedt S, Marsiske M, Ball K, Elias J, Koepke K, et al. Long-term effects of cognitive
training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA 2006;296(23):2805–14. [PubMed:
17179457]
15. McDougall GJ, Becker H, Pituch K, Vaughn PW, Acee TW, Delville CL. The SeniorWISE study:
Cognitive training with a triethnic sample of community-residing older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc.
(under review).
16. Anttila T, Helkala EL, Viitanen M, Kareholt I, Fratiglioni L, Winblad B, et al. Alcohol drinking in
middle age and subsequent risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in old age: a prospective
population based study. BMJ 2004;329(7465):539. [PubMed: 15304383]
17. Lang I, Guralnik J, Wallace R, Melzer D. What level of alcohol consumption is hazardous for older
people? Functioning and mortality in U.S. and English national cohorts. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55
(1):49–5. [PubMed: 17233685]
18. Helzer JE, Pryzbeck TR. The co-occurrence of alcoholism with other psychiatric disorders in the
general population and its impact on treatment. J Stud Alcohol 1988;49:219–24. [PubMed: 3374135]
19. Moscato B, Russell M, Zielezny M, Bromet E, Egri G, Mudar P, et al. Gender differences in the
relation between depressive symptoms and alcohol problems: a longitudinal perspective. Am J
Epidemiol 1997;146(11):966–74. [PubMed: 9400339]
20. Blow F, Brockmann L, Barry K. Role of alcohol in late-life suicide. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2004;28
(5 Suppl):48S–56S. [PubMed: 15166636]
21. Gazmararian J, Baker D, Parker R, Blazer D. A multivariate analysis of factors associated with
depression: evaluating the role of health literacy as a potential contributor. Arch Intern Med 2000;160
(21):3307–14. [PubMed: 11088094]
22. Katula J, Sipe M, Rejeski W, Focht B. Strength training in older adults: an empowering intervention.
Med Sci Sport Exer 2006;38(1):106–11.
23. Losada Baltar A, Izal Fernández de Trocóniz M, Montorio Cerrato I, Márquez González M, Pérez
Rojo G. [Differential efficacy of two psychoeducational interventions for dementia family
caregivers]. Revista De Neurologia 2004;38(8):701–8. [PubMed: 15122537]
24. Ware, JE.; Kosinski, M.; Dewey, JE. How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln RI:
QualityMetric Inc; 2000.
25. Zimmerman T, McDougall G, Becker H. Older women’s cognitive and affective response to moderate
drinking. International J Geriatr Psychiat 2004;19(11):1095–1110.
26. McDougall GJ, Becker H, Arheart KL. Older adults in the SeniorWISE study at-risk for mild cognitive
impairment. Arch Psychiat Nurs 2006;20(3):126–34.
McDougall et al. Page 8
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Fig. 1.
Change over time by group and drinking status
McDougall et al. Page 9
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
McDougall et al. Page 10
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of drinkers and non-drinkers in health and cognitive intervention groups
Characteristics
Health Intervention (n=130) Mean (SD) Cognitive Intervention (n= 135) Mean (SD)
Nondrinker(n=71) Drinker (n=58) Nondrinker (n= 72) Drinker (n=63)
Age (years) 74.87 (6.36) 74.67 (6.1) 75.18 (5.95) 74.13 (5.48)
Education (years) 12.68 (3.81) 15.22 (3.12) 13.03 (4.35) 13.8 (3.29)
n(%)
Gender
Females 58 (82) 41 (71) 60 (83) 45(71)
Males 13 (18) 17 (29) 12 (17) 18 (29)
Race
White 39 (55) 53 (91) 39 (54) 57 (90)
Black 13 (18) 2 (3) 14 (19) 1 (2)
Other 19 (27) 3 (5) 19 (26) 5 (8)
Ethnicity
Hispanic 19 (27) 3(5) 19(26) 5(8)
Non-Hispanic 52 (73) 55 (95) 53(74) 58 (92)
Marital Status
Married 16 (23) 21 (36) 19 (26) 26 (41)
Never Married 2 (3) 1 (2) 2 (3) 3 (5)
Divorced 16 (23) 10 (17) 12 (17) 13 (21)
Widowed 37 (52) 26 (45) 38 (53) 20 (32)
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
McDougall et al. Page 11
Table 2
Means and standard deviations for outcome measures for groups and drinking status
Health Intervention Mean(SD) Memory Intervention Mean (SD)
Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Non-drink (n=71) Drink (n=58) Non-drink (n=70) Drink (n=53) Non-drink (n=72) Drink (n=63) Non-drink (n= 66) Drink (n=60)
Instrumental Activities 79.87 (7.17) 83.69 (3.36) 80.59 (7.10) 84.79 (3.30) 81.45 (4.84) 83.41 (4.01) 81.81 (5.19) 84.63 (3.75)
Depression 11.11 (7.30) 7.56 (5.78) 11.09 (8.28) 8.52 (6.32) 10.74 (6.70) 7.29 (6.28) 9.56 (6.72) 7.85(7.13)
Cognition 27.10 (2.44) 28.62 (1.62) 26.84 (2.74) 28.66 (1.47) 27.47 (2.22) 28.59 (1.63) 27.81 (2.08) 28.78 (1.32)
Memory
Everyday 16.89 (4.99) 19.52 (3.37) 17.39 (5.06) 20.15 (3.51) 18.08(3.97) 19.70 (3.07) 19.12 (3.78) 20.43 (2.79)
Verbal 42.8 (10.88) 51.50 (9.75) 42.47 (11.28) 53.38 (9.81) 45.05 (11.61) 51.86 (9.94) 47.24 (11.33) 52.62 (8.11)
Visual 39.48 (14.69) 46.47 (14.19) 37.39 (13.44) 46.15 (12.99) 40.07 (13.57) 45.43 (13.30) 39.36 (13.72) 52.62 (8.11)
Health: SF-36 Scales
Physical Function 58.40 (26.51) 71.35 (24.93) 60.92 (24.02) 71.92 (21.05) 62.10 (29.60) 72.12 (24.06) 62.95 (27.60) 73.22 (21.45)
Role-Physical 59.04 (43.52) 71.93 (36.31) 53.52 (40.55) 74.04 (35.34) 64.93 (37.92) 81.35 (29.09) 67.05 (36.99) 71.61 (38.69)
Bodily Pain 70.15 (25.39) 75.55 (21.63) 64,56 (24.24) 71.74 (23.16) 68.79 (23.37) 73.16 (22.08) 74.42 (23.42) 72.23 (20.05)
General Health 64.46 (19.65) 76,88 (16.65) 62,70(17.92) 76.02 (16.43) 68.79 (20.96) 78.65 (17.11) 69.31 (21.35) 79.29 (16.40)
Vitality 59.93 (19,20) 68.97 (16.48) 59.21 (20.97) 66.51 (16.60) 64.86 (16.36) 71.51 (16.84) 64.23 (19.71) 66.50 (18.94)
Social Function 83.45 (21.83) 89.01 (16.40) 81.84(22.71) 86.06 (18.13) 88.37 (19.83) 93.25 (13.99) 87.12(18.60) 86.25 (19.76)
Role Emotional 77.46 (35.08) 86.55 (26.62) 67.20 (40.38) 82.69 (29.88) 77.00(36.77) 86.24 (25.14) 76.26 (35.45) 79.66 (33.91)
Mental Health 79.09(16.22) 83.66 (12.36) 75.88 (17.33) 82.79 (12.71) S2.06 (14.00) 85.52 (11.73) 82.29 (13.80) 80.27 (17.98)
Physical Component Score 40.90(11.38) 45.81 (10.51) 40.71 (9.77) 45.71 (9.03) 42.17(11.14) 46.72 (9.18) 43.23 (10.15) 46.82 (9.17)
Mental Component Score 54.15(8.92) 56.24 (7.57) 51.87(10.52) 54.86 (7.91) 55.51 (7.88) 57.16 (6.61) 54.91 (7.91) 53.74 (9.49)
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
McDougall et al. Page 12
Table 3
Standard regression coefficients to predict outcome measures at baseline
Cognition Memory Everyday Verbal Visual Instrumental Activities Depression
β β β β β β
Age −.03 −.21†−.05 −.23†−.16†.07
Education .42†.25†.26†.24†.36†−.14
Hispanic −.10 −.21†−.08 −.20†−.02†−.04
Black −.23†−,29†−.27†−.28†−.26†.06
Male −.16†−.06 −.30†−.17†−.08 −.04
Married .04 .01 .33 .06 −.07 −.11
Drinker .14*.06 .23†.04 .09 −.21†
Health: SF-36
General Health Physical Function Role Physical Vitality Pain Social Function
β β β β β β
Age −.07 −.14*−.16*−.18†−.13*−.02
Education .05 .16 .07 .04 .01 .06
Hispanic −.04 .11 .11 .15 .03 .07
Black −.15*−.01 0 .13*−.12 −.03
Male −.01 −.07 −.02 −.07 −.07 −.01
Married .06 .14*.03 .07 .08 .01
Drinker .23†.19†.20†.21†.07 .13
Role Emotional Mental Health Physical Component Score Mental Component Score
β β β β
Age −.11 −.02 −.16†−.26
Education .1 .15*.07 0.08
Hispanic .04 −.06 .09 −.01
Black −.14*.03 −.05 −.01
Male .11 .03 −.08 .08
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
McDougall et al. Page 13
Role Emotional Mental Health Physical Component Score Mental Component Score
Married .07 .11 .09 .05
Drinker .06 .08 .21†.07
*p < .05
†p < .01; Cognition = Mini Mental State Examination; Everyday Memory = Standard profile score from the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test; Verbal Memory = Delayed recall T score from the Hopkins
Verbal Learning Test-Revised; Visual Memory = Delayed recall T score from the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised; Instrumental Activities = Direct Assessment of Functional Status; Depression =
Center for Epidemiological Diseases-Depression.
Int J Disabil Hum Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 21.
