Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Many dementia and cardiovascular disease (CVD) cases in older adults are attributable to modifiable vascular and lifestyle-related risk factors, providing opportunities for prevention. In the Healthy Aging Through Internet Counselling in the Elderly (HATICE) randomized controlled trial, an internet-based multidomain intervention is being tested to improve the cardiovascular risk (CVR) profile of older adults. Objective To design a multidomain intervention to improve CVR, based on the guidelines for CVR management, and administered through a coach-supported, interactive, platform to over 2500 community-dwellers aged 65+ in three European countries. Methods A comparative analysis of national and European guidelines for primary and secondary CVD prevention was performed. Results were used to define the content of the intervention. Results The intervention design focused on promoting awareness and self-management of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and overweight, and supporting smoking cessation, physical activity, and healthy diet. Overall, available guidelines lacked specific recommendations for CVR management in older adults. The comparative analysis of the guidelines showed general consistency for lifestyle-related recommendations. Key differences, identified mostly in methods used to assess the overall CVR, did not hamper the intervention design. Minor country-specific adaptations were implemented to maximize the intervention feasibility in each country. Conclusion Despite differences in CVR management within the countries considered, it was possible to design and implement the HATICE multidomain intervention. The study can help define preventative strategies for dementia and CVD that are applicable internationally.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 70/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 43 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 70 of 100. Total 70 of 100.43 of the 61 points we could judge = 70 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
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 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
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 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29480185)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 43 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100.
Total 70 / 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.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

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.

APA 7th

Barbera, M., Mangialasche, F., Jongstra, S., Guillemont, J., Ngandu, T., Beishuizen, C., et al. (2018). Designing an Internet-Based Multidomain Intervention for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: The HATICE Trial. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170858

Vancouver

Barbera M, Mangialasche F, Jongstra S, Guillemont J, Ngandu T, Beishuizen C, et al. Designing an Internet-Based Multidomain Intervention for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: The HATICE Trial. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2018. doi:10.3233/jad-170858. PMID: 29480185.

BibTeX

@article{barbera2018-29480185,
  author  = {Barbera, M. and Mangialasche, F. and Jongstra, S. and Guillemont, J. and Ngandu, T. and Beishuizen, C. and Coley, N. and Brayne, C. and others},
  title   = {{Designing an Internet-Based Multidomain Intervention for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: The HATICE Trial}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-170858},
  pmid    = {29480185},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170858}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →