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 83 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of multidomain intervention (MI) tailored to the Korean context. In an outcome assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial, participants without dementia and with one or more modifiable dementia risk factors, aged 60-79 years, were randomly assigned to the facility-based MI (FMI; n=51), the home-based MI (HMI; n=51), or the control group receiving general health advice (n=50). The 24-week intervention comprised vascular risk management, cognitive training, social activity, physical exercise, nutrition guidance, and motivational enhancement. The FMI participants performed all intervention programs at a facility three times a week. The HMI participants performed some programs at a facility once every 1-2 weeks and performed others at home. The primary outcome was feasibility measured through retention, adherence, and at least no differences from the control group in the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). In the FMI and HMI groups, the retention rates were 88.2% and 96.1%, and adherence to the intervention was 94.5% and 96.8%, respectively. The RBANS total scale index score improved significantly in the FMI (5.46 ± 7.50, P = 0.004) and HMI (5.50 ± 8.14, P = 0.004) groups compared to the control group (-0.74 ± 11.51). The FMI and HMI are feasible and there are indicators of efficacy.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 83/100
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 3 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 2 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 left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 48 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 83 of 100. Total 83 of 100.48 of the 58 points we could judge = 83 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 83 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging)
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 51 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 2 / 2 Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (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 34148030)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 48 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 83 out of 100.
Total 83 / 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

Moon, S. Y., Hong, C. H., Jeong, J. H., Park, Y. K., Na, H. R., Song, H. S., et al. (2021). Facility-based and home-based multidomain interventions including cognitive training, exercise, diet, vascular risk management, and motivation for older adults: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Aging. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203213

Vancouver

Moon SY, Hong CH, Jeong JH, Park YK, Na HR, Song HS, et al. Facility-based and home-based multidomain interventions including cognitive training, exercise, diet, vascular risk management, and motivation for older adults: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Aging. 2021. doi:10.18632/aging.203213. PMID: 34148030.

BibTeX

@article{moon2021-34148030,
  author  = {Moon, S. Y. and Hong, C. H. and Jeong, J. H. and Park, Y. K. and Na, H. R. and Song, H. S. and Kim, B. C. and Park, K. W. and others},
  title   = {{Facility-based and home-based multidomain interventions including cognitive training, exercise, diet, vascular risk management, and motivation for older adults: a randomized controlled feasibility trial}},
  journal = {Aging},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.18632/aging.203213},
  pmid    = {34148030},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203213}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →