Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Prevention of dementia using mobile phone applications (PRODEMOS): protocol for an international randomised controlled trial
Eggink E, Hafdi M, Hoevenaar-Blom MP, Song M, Andrieu S, Barnes LE, Birck C, Brooks RL et al.. BMJ open, 2021-06-09
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Introduction Profiles of high risk for future dementia are well understood and are likely to concern mostly those in low-income and middle-income countries and people at greater disadvantage in high-income countries. Approximately 30%-40% of dementia cases have been estimated to be attributed to modifiable risk factors, including hypertension, smoking and sedentary lifestyle. Tailored interventions targeting these risk factors can potentially prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Mobile health (mHealth) improves accessibility of such prevention strategies in hard-to-reach populations while at the same time tailoring such approaches. In the current study, we will investigate the effectiveness and implementation of a coach-supported mHealth intervention, targeting dementia risk factors, to reduce dementia risk. Methods and analysis The prevention of dementia using mobile phone applications (PRODEMOS) randomised controlled trial will follow an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design, taking place in the UK and China. People are eligible if they are 55-75 years old, of low socioeconomic status (UK) or from the general population (China); have ≥2 dementia risk factors; and own a smartphone. 2400 participants will be randomised to either a coach-supported, interactive mHealth platform, facilitating self-management of dementia risk factors, or a static control platform. The intervention and follow-up period will be 18 months. The primary effectiveness outcome is change in the previously validated Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Ageing and Incidence of Dementia dementia risk score. The main secondary outcomes include improvement of individual risk factors and cost-effectiveness. Implementation outcomes include acceptability, adoption, feasibility and sustainability of the intervention. Ethics and dissemination The PRODEMOS trial is sponsored in the UK by the University of Cambridge and is granted ethical approval by the London-Brighton and Sussex Research Ethics Committee (reference: 20/LO/01440). In China, the trial is approved by the medical ethics committees of Capital Medical University, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Beijing Geriatric Hospital, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Taishan Medical University and Xuanwu Hospital. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number ISRCTN15986016.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Eggink, E., Hafdi, M., Hoevenaar-Blom, M. P., Song, M., Andrieu, S., Barnes, L. E., et al. (2021). Prevention of dementia using mobile phone applications (PRODEMOS): protocol for an international randomised controlled trial. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049762
Vancouver
Eggink E, Hafdi M, Hoevenaar-Blom MP, Song M, Andrieu S, Barnes LE, et al. Prevention of dementia using mobile phone applications (PRODEMOS): protocol for an international randomised controlled trial. BMJ open. 2021. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049762. PMID: 34108173.
BibTeX
@article{eggink2021-34108173,
author = {Eggink, E. and Hafdi, M. and Hoevenaar-Blom, M. P. and Song, M. and Andrieu, S. and Barnes, L. E. and Birck, C. and Brooks, R. L. and others},
title = {{Prevention of dementia using mobile phone applications (PRODEMOS): protocol for an international randomised controlled trial}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049762},
pmid = {34108173},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049762}
}
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 published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants2,400
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 81/100
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 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 81 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 | 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 2,400 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 | — / 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 34108173) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 47 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 81 out of 100. |
| Total | 81 / 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”
238 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 238 tagged studies.