ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
A scoping review of emotion and non-cognitive measures of decision-making ability in older adults by the ARMCADA study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Decision-making is a complex form of cognitive function that declines with age and is highly susceptible to impairment from dementia due to Alzheimer's and related neurogenerative diseases. Emotions and other non-cognitive assets are also believed to influence decision-making ability. The Advancing Reliable Measurement in Cognitive Aging and Decision-making Ability (ARMCADA) research initiative seeks to understand how measures of emotion and non-cognitive influences of decision-making (ENC DM) have been used in research and clinical settings. The scoping review examined the recent literature on decision-making measures involving emotion and non-cognitive domains in aging samples. Methods: Using a well-established scoping review methodology framework we conducted a systematic search across six databases-Embase (Elsevier), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EbscoHost), Cochrane Library, Web of Science (Clarivate), and Scopus (Elsevier)-to identify studies published between January 2018 and November 2023 that met our predefined eligibility criteria. In line with recommended best practices, sample selection was carried out in two-stages: First, two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance; second, full-text articles were reviewed, and data were extracted from those that met the inclusion criteria. Results: The final dataset included 232 articles and, among them, 143 unique emotion and non-cognitive decision-making measures. Twenty-eight percent of manuscripts used measures with a clinical sample, 26% used measures with a normative adult sample, and 47% used measures with both clinical and non-clinical samples. The five most frequent measures used were: Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, Delay Discounting Task, Decisional Conflict Scale, and Cambridge Gambling Task. Discussion: Results of the most common decision-making measures reflect a preference for assessing risk-taking and impulsivity in the sphere of non-cognitive and emotion function. Such trends were also found in clinical samples of older adults with neurodegenerative diseases. These findings inform the larger ARMCADA project in the development of reliable and validated measurement of decision-making among older adults. It will also support researchers studying older adults' decision-making skills and their vulnerability to diseases that cause cognitive impairment and dementia, with an understanding of the current assessments used to track ENC DM. Systematic review registration: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/12/e084178.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.