Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Multidomain Dementia Risk Reduction in Primary Care is Feasible: A Proof-of-concept study
Stephanie Van Asbroeck, Sebastian Köhler, Sophie C P M Wimmers, Jean W M Muris, Martin P J van Boxtel, Kay Deckers. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2024
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful. Drop-out was low (6.9%). LIBRA improved similarly in both groups, as did Mediterranean diet adherence and body mass index. Knowledge of dementia risk reduction increased, but more in the app group. Interviews provided insight in participants' and PCPs' needs and wishes. Integrating dementia risk reduction in primary care, supported by a smartphone app, is a viable approach towards dementia risk reduction. Larger trials are needed to establish (cost-)effectiveness.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Van Asbroeck, S., Köhler, S., Wimmers, S. C. P. M., Muris, J. W. M., van Boxtel, M. P. J., & Deckers, K. (2024). Multidomain Dementia Risk Reduction in Primary Care is Feasible: A Proof-of-concept study. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240229
Vancouver
Van Asbroeck S, Köhler S, Wimmers SCPM, Muris JWM, van Boxtel MPJ, Deckers K. Multidomain Dementia Risk Reduction in Primary Care is Feasible: A Proof-of-concept study. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2024. doi:10.3233/jad-240229. PMID: 38759017.
BibTeX
@article{vanasbroeck2024-38759017,
author = {Van Asbroeck, Stephanie and Köhler, Sebastian and Wimmers, Sophie C P M and Muris, Jean W M and van Boxtel, Martin P J and Deckers, Kay},
title = {{Multidomain Dementia Risk Reduction in Primary Care is Feasible: A Proof-of-concept study}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3233/jad-240229},
pmid = {38759017},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240229}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The interventions were positively perceived, with 72.0% finding the consultation informative and 69.2% considering the app useful.
- LIBRA improved similarly in both groups, as did Mediterranean diet adherence and body mass index.
- Knowledge of dementia risk reduction increased, but more in the app group.
- Interviews provided insight in participants' and PCPs' needs and wishes.
- Integrating dementia risk reduction in primary care, supported by a smartphone app, is a viable approach towards dementia risk reduction.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants188
- Effect size72.0%; 69.2%; 6.9%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 84/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 84 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 | — / 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 188 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 | 1 / 2 | Randomised (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 38759017) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 47 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 84 out of 100. |
| Total | 84 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
239 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 239 tagged studies.