Home › Research › Treatments
Feasibility of a Memory Clinic-Based Physical Activity Prescription Program
Vidoni ED, Watts AS, Burns JM, Greer CS, Graves RS, Van Sciver A, Black JR, Cooper SK et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2016-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Effective programs for promoting physical activity are needed for those with cognitive impairment. Objective To test the feasibility of mobile Health (mHealth) technology-supported physical activity prescription from a tertiary care memory clinic. Methods This feasibility study was designed as a 16-week randomized, crossover trial of a physical activity prescription: 8 weeks of intervention, 8 weeks of baseline or maintenance phase data collection. We recruited 2 cohorts: 21 individuals with Alzheimer-related cognitive impairment (mean age 72.3 (5.2), 9 females), and 9 individuals with normal cognition (mean age 69.6 (5.8), 8 females). We gave each cohort an mHealth accelerometer-based physical activity prescription to double number of steps taken. Our primary outcomes were feasibility and safety. Our secondary outcomes were change in weekly steps taken, Dementia Quality of Life Scale, Self-efficacy Scale, 6-minute Walk, and mini-Physical Performance Test. Results Set-up and use of the device was not a barrier to participation. However, only 62% of participants with cognitive impairment completed the intervention. The cohort with cognitive impairment did not change their weekly step count above Week 1. All participants in the cohort with normal cognition were able to set up and use their device and increased their weekly step count above Week 1. There were no differences between Week 1 and Week 8 for any secondary measures in either cohort. Conclusions Setup and daily use of mHealth technology appears to be feasible for a person with cognitive impairment with the help of a partner, but increasing daily step counts over 8 weeks was not achieved. Future work needs to assess alternative activity prescription goals or additional support for patients and their partners.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Vidoni, E. D., Watts, A. S., Burns, J. M., Greer, C. S., Graves, R. S., Van Sciver, A., et al. (2016). Feasibility of a Memory Clinic-Based Physical Activity Prescription Program. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160158
Vancouver
Vidoni ED, Watts AS, Burns JM, Greer CS, Graves RS, Van Sciver A, et al. Feasibility of a Memory Clinic-Based Physical Activity Prescription Program. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2016. doi:10.3233/jad-160158. PMID: 27104905.
BibTeX
@article{vidoni2016-27104905,
author = {Vidoni, E. D. and Watts, A. S. and Burns, J. M. and Greer, C. S. and Graves, R. S. and Van Sciver, A. and Black, JR. and Cooper, S. K. and others},
title = {{Feasibility of a Memory Clinic-Based Physical Activity Prescription Program}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.3233/jad-160158},
pmid = {27104905},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160158}
}
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
- Results Set-up and use of the device was not a barrier to participation.
Why it matters
In this small feasibility study, only 62% of participants with cognitive impairment completed the physical activity programme and they did not increase their weekly step count, while those with normal cognition did. This shows a physical activity prescription programme was not feasible for many people with cognitive impairment and says nothing about treating or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants21
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Journal of Alzheimer s Disease: journal h-index 218 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 21 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 | 3 / 7 | Cited 33 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 2.8 citations a year over 12 year(s) since 2016 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 2 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 10 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Natalie A. Bieberle holds only 1 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | University of Kansas: institution h-index 709 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27104905) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 53 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 53 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 13.
Later studies that cite this one
2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Treatments
Also in Treatments
166 studies in the library are filed under Treatments with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Treatments hub.