Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
International Mind, Activities and Urban Places (iMAP) study: methods of a cohort study on environmental and lifestyle influences on brain and cognitive health
Cerin E, Barnett A, Chaix B, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Caeyenberghs K, Jalaludin B, Sugiyama T, Sallis JF et al.. BMJ open, 2020-03-18
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Numerous studies have found associations between characteristics of urban environments and risk factors for dementia and cognitive decline, such as physical inactivity and obesity. However, the contribution of urban environments to brain and cognitive health has been seldom examined directly. This cohort study investigates the extent to which and how a wide range of characteristics of urban environments influence brain and cognitive health via lifestyle behaviours in mid-aged and older adults in three cities across three continents. Methods and analysis Participants aged 50-79 years and living in preselected areas stratified by walkability, air pollution and socioeconomic status are being recruited in Melbourne (Australia), Barcelona (Spain) and Hong Kong (China) (n=1800 total; 600 per site). Two assessments taken 24 months apart will capture changes in brain and cognitive health. Cognitive function is gauged with a battery of eight standardised tests. Brain health is assessed using MRI scans in a subset of participants. Information on participants' visited locations is collected via an interactive web-based mapping application and smartphone geolocation data. Environmental characteristics of visited locations, including the built and natural environments and their by-products (e.g., air pollution), are assessed using geographical information systems, online environmental audits and self-reports. Data on travel and lifestyle behaviours (e.g., physical and social activities) and participants' characteristics (e.g., sociodemographics) are collected using objective and/or self-report measures. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Australian Catholic University, the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong and the Parc de Salut Mar Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Government of Catalonia. Results will be communicated through standard scientific channels. Methods will be made freely available via a study-dedicated website. Trial registration number ACTRN12619000817145.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cerin, E., Barnett, A., Chaix, B., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Caeyenberghs, K., Jalaludin, B., et al. (2020). International Mind, Activities and Urban Places (iMAP) study: methods of a cohort study on environmental and lifestyle influences on brain and cognitive health. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036607
Vancouver
Cerin E, Barnett A, Chaix B, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Caeyenberghs K, Jalaludin B, et al. International Mind, Activities and Urban Places (iMAP) study: methods of a cohort study on environmental and lifestyle influences on brain and cognitive health. BMJ open. 2020. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036607. PMID: 32193278.
BibTeX
@article{cerin2020-32193278,
author = {Cerin, E. and Barnett, A. and Chaix, B. and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. and Caeyenberghs, K. and Jalaludin, B. and Sugiyama, T. and Sallis, J. F. and others},
title = {{International Mind, Activities and Urban Places (iMAP) study: methods of a cohort study on environmental and lifestyle influences on brain and cognitive health}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036607},
pmid = {32193278},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036607}
}
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 will be communicated through standard scientific channels.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants1,800
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / blinded 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,800 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32193278) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “cognitive-health”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-health”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.