Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
mHealth Intervention for Dementia Prevention through lifestyle Optimisation (MIND-PRO) in a primary care setting: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in people with low SES and/or migration background
van der Endt AR, Hoevenaar-Blom MP, Galenkamp H, Kas MJH, van den Berg E, Handels R, Moll van Charante EP, Richard E.. BMJ open, 2025-02-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction The Mobile Health (mHealth) Intervention for Dementia Prevention through lifestyle Optimisation (MIND-PRO) study addresses the increasing prevalence of dementia among populations with lower socio-economic status (SES) and/or a migration background. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an mHealth intervention designed for self-managing lifestyle modifications with remote coaching to reduce dementia risk factors. Methods and analysis This prospective randomised open-label blinded end point (PROBE) trial follows a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design with a 12-month intervention period. It aims to recruit 692 participants in Dutch primary care. Entry criteria include age 50-75 years, low SES and/or migration background, one or more dementia risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, physical inactivity, smoking, depression and overweight) or manifest cardiovascular disease and possession of a smartphone. Participants are randomised to a coach-supported, interactive app facilitating self-management of dementia risk factors or to a control app with static health information. The primary effectiveness outcome is a composite score of systolic blood pressure, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and body mass index. Implementation outcomes include coverage, adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, costs and sustainability of the intervention. Secondary outcomes include the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Ageing and Dementia risk score and its individual risk factors, and disability, physical activity, depressive symptoms, cognitive functioning and daily distance moved. Ethics and dissemination The MIND-PRO trial is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw, grant number 10510032120004) and approved by the Ethics Committee of Amsterdam UMC (reference: METC 2023.0770). Results are expected in 2026 and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and presented at scientific conferences. Trial registration number ISRCTN92928122.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van der Endt, A. R., Hoevenaar-Blom, M. P., Galenkamp, H., Kas, M. J. H., van den Berg, E., Handels, R., et al. (2025). mHealth Intervention for Dementia Prevention through lifestyle Optimisation (MIND-PRO) in a primary care setting: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in people with low SES and/or migration background. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088324
Vancouver
van der Endt AR, Hoevenaar-Blom MP, Galenkamp H, Kas MJH, van den Berg E, Handels R, et al. mHealth Intervention for Dementia Prevention through lifestyle Optimisation (MIND-PRO) in a primary care setting: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in people with low SES and/or migration background. BMJ open. 2025. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088324. PMID: 39900419.
BibTeX
@article{vanderendt2025-39900419,
author = {van der Endt, A. R. and Hoevenaar-Blom, M. P. and Galenkamp, H. and Kas, M. J. H. and van den Berg, E. and Handels, R. and Moll van Charante, E. P. and Richard, E.},
title = {{mHealth Intervention for Dementia Prevention through lifestyle Optimisation (MIND-PRO) in a primary care setting: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in people with low SES and/or migration background}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088324},
pmid = {39900419},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088324}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results are expected in 2026 and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and presented at scientific conferences.
Study details
- Study designopen-label trial
- Participants692
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 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 | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “open-label trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 692 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 | 1 / 2 | Randomized (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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39900419) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 36 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100. |
| Total | 62 / 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 “care-setting”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care-setting”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.