Home › Research › Disparities
Innovations in Dementia Empowerment and Action: RCT for Underserved Communities
Karen I. Fredriksen‐Goldsen, Linda L Teri, Hyun‐Jun Kim, Brittany Jones‐Cobb, David M. LaFazia, Glenise L. McKenzie, Ryan Petros, Hailey H. Jung et al.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2025-12-12
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
ABSTRACT Background Research has revealed dementia disparities among underserved older adults. Built upon standard‐Reducing Disability in Alzheimer's Disease (s‐RDAD), Innovations in Dementia Empowerment and Action (IDEA) is designed and culturally tailored for underserved communities through an empowerment stigma‐reduction cognitive‐behavioral intervention and tested with sexual and gender minority (SGM) adults and care partners. Methods The study is a 2‐arm (IDEA and s‐RDAD), single‐blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a staggered multiple baseline design. With 161 dyads (person living with dementia/care partner), the aim of the study is to compare the two arms via between and within group differences on primary (physical activity) and secondary outcomes (e.g., quality of life, physical functioning, and resource literacy) at post‐treatment, and 30 and 56 week follow‐up. Results When comparing the two arm between‐group differences, the IDEA care partners' community resource literacy was significantly higher at 30‐week follow‐up than for s‐RDAD (contrast = 0.10, p = 0.005). While both intervention arms demonstrated efficacy with significant improvement in physical activity (contrast IDEA = 0.10, p = 0.010; contrast s‐RDAD = 0.14, p < 0.001) and quality of life (contrast IDEA = 0.06, p < 0.001; contrast s‐RDAD = 0.03, p = 0.035) for the person with dementia at post‐treatment, positive treatment effects on physical activity (contrast IDEA = 0.09, p = 0.032) and quality of life (contrast IDEA = 0.03, p = 0.040) persisted at 30 weeks for IDEA but not for s‐RDAD. Conclusion While both intervention arms were efficacious, IDEA demonstrated sustained efficacy. The cultural tailoring of interventions is promising to address disparities in dementia care and interventions in underserved communities. Future research is needed for the translation of this efficacious intervention to the larger community. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03550131
Key findings
- ABSTRACT Background Research has revealed dementia disparities among underserved older adults.
- Results When comparing the two arm between‐group differences, the IDEA care partners' community resource literacy was significantly higher at 30‐week follow‐up than for s‐RDAD (contrast = 0.10, p = 0.005).
- While both intervention arms demonstrated efficacy with significant improvement in physical activity (contrast IDEA = 0.10, p = 0.010; contrast s‐RDAD = 0.14, p < 0.001) and quality of life (contrast IDEA = 0.06, p < 0.001; contrast s‐RDAD = 0.03, p = 0.035) for the person with dementia at post‐treatment, positive treatment effects on physical activity (contrast IDEA = 0.09, p = 0.032) and quality of life (contrast IDEA = 0.03, p = 0.040) persisted at 30 weeks for IDEA but not for s‐RDAD.
- Conclusion While both intervention arms were efficacious, IDEA demonstrated sustained efficacy.
Why it matters
In a randomized trial of 161 person-with-dementia and care-partner pairs, both the IDEA and s-RDAD programs improved physical activity and quality of life for the person with dementia, and IDEA care partners had higher community resource literacy at 30 weeks. This tests support programs for underserved communities, not a treatment, cure, or prevention of Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 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 | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 1 / 6 | Cited 0.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Charles A. Emlet: h-index 33 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41387197) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 53 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1111/jgs.70189
- PubMed: 41387197
- Original source →
- Free full text: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
Fredriksen‐Goldsen, K. I., Teri, L. L., Kim, H., Jones‐Cobb, B., LaFazia, D. M., McKenzie, G. L., et al. (2025). Innovations in Dementia Empowerment and Action: RCT for Underserved Communities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.70189
Vancouver
Fredriksen‐Goldsen KI, Teri LL, Kim H, Jones‐Cobb B, LaFazia DM, McKenzie GL, et al. Innovations in Dementia Empowerment and Action: RCT for Underserved Communities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2025. doi:10.1111/jgs.70189. PMID: 41387197.
BibTeX
@article{fredriksengoldsen2025-41387197,
author = {Fredriksen‐Goldsen, Karen I. and Teri, Linda L and Kim, Hyun‐Jun and Jones‐Cobb, Brittany and LaFazia, David M. and McKenzie, Glenise L. and Petros, Ryan and Jung, Hailey H. and others},
title = {{Innovations in Dementia Empowerment and Action: RCT for Underserved Communities}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.70189},
pmid = {41387197},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.70189}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.