Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: Protocol for a Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Study
Smith G, Chandler M, Locke DE, Fields J, Phatak V, Crook J, Hanna S, Lunde A et al.. JMIR research protocols, 2017-11-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Currently, people at risk for dementia and their caregivers are confronted with confusing choices about what behavioral interventions are most effective. Objective The objective of this study is to determine which empirically supported behavioral interventions most impact the outcomes highly valued by patients with mild cognitive impairment and their partners. Methods This protocol describes a comparative effectiveness trial targeting 300 participants with mild cognitive impairment and their study partners. The trial is being conducted at the Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and the University of Washington in Seattle. The study examines the contribution of five behavioral interventions (yoga, memory compensation training, computerized cognitive training, support groups, and wellness education) on primary outcomes of participant and partner quality of life and self-efficacy. In this unique 10-day multicomponent intervention, groups of couples were randomized to have one of the five interventions withheld while receiving the other four. Although the longitudinal follow-up is still under way, enrollment results are available and reported. Results In total, 272 couples have been enrolled in the trial and follow-up visits continue. Outcomes will be assessed at the end-of-intervention and 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups. We anticipate reporting on our primary and secondary outcomes across time points in the next 2 years. Conclusions This paper describes the protocol for a randomized comparative effectiveness study of behavioral interventions to prevent or delay dementia. We describe of the rationale, design, power analysis, and analysis plan. Also because enrollment is complete and we are in follow-up phases of the study, we have included enrollment data from the trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02265757; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ctsshow/ NCT02265757 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ueRfwSYv).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Smith, G., Chandler, M., Locke, D. E., Fields, J., Phatak, V., Crook, J., et al. (2017). Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: Protocol for a Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Study. JMIR research protocols. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.8103
Vancouver
Smith G, Chandler M, Locke DE, Fields J, Phatak V, Crook J, et al. Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: Protocol for a Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Study. JMIR research protocols. 2017. doi:10.2196/resprot.8103. PMID: 29180344.
BibTeX
@article{smith2017-29180344,
author = {Smith, G. and Chandler, M. and Locke, D. E. and Fields, J. and Phatak, V. and Crook, J. and Hanna, S. and Lunde, A. and others},
title = {{Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: Protocol for a Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Study}},
journal = {JMIR research protocols},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.2196/resprot.8103},
pmid = {29180344},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.8103}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Although the longitudinal follow-up is still under way, enrollment results are available and reported.
- Results In total, 272 couples have been enrolled in the trial and follow-up visits continue.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants300
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR research protocols) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 300 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29180344) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “prevents”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevents”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.