Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To investigate the effect of a 2-year multidomain lifestyle intervention on daily functioning of older people. Design A 2-year randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01041989). Setting Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability. Participants A total of 1260 older adults, with a mean age of 69 years at the baseline, who were at risk of cognitive decline. Intervention A multidomain intervention, including simultaneous physical activity intervention, nutritional counseling, vascular risk monitoring and management, and cognitive training and social activity. Measurements The ability to perform daily activities (activities of daily living [ADLs] and instrumental ADLs) and physical performance (Short Physical Performance Battery). Results The mean baseline ADL score was 18.1 (SD = 2.6) points; the scale ranges from 17 (no difficulties) to 85 (total ADL dependence). During the 2-year intervention, the ADL disability score slightly increased in the control group, while in the intervention group, it remained relatively stable. Based on the latent growth curve model, the difference in the change between the intervention and control groups was -0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.61 to -0.28) after 1 year and -1.20 (95% CI = -2.02 to -0.38) after 2 years. In terms of physical performance, the intervention group had a slightly higher probability of improvement (from score 3 to score 4; P = .041) and a lower probability of decline (from score 3 to scores 0-2; P = .043) for chair rise compared to the control group. Conclusion A 2-year lifestyle intervention was able to maintain the daily functioning of the at-risk older population. The clinical significance of these results in this fairly well-functioning population remains uncertain, but the study results hold promise that healthy eating, exercise, and cognitive and social activity may have favorable effects on functional independence in older people.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Kulmala, J., Ngandu, T., Havulinna, S., Levälahti, E., Lehtisalo, J., Solomon, A., et al. (2019). The Effect of Multidomain Lifestyle Intervention on Daily Functioning in Older People. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15837

Vancouver

Kulmala J, Ngandu T, Havulinna S, Levälahti E, Lehtisalo J, Solomon A, et al. The Effect of Multidomain Lifestyle Intervention on Daily Functioning in Older People. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2019. doi:10.1111/jgs.15837. PMID: 30809801.

BibTeX

@article{kulmala2019-30809801,
  author  = {Kulmala, J. and Ngandu, T. and Havulinna, S. and Levälahti, E. and Lehtisalo, J. and Solomon, A. and Antikainen, R. and Laatikainen, T. and others},
  title   = {{The Effect of Multidomain Lifestyle Intervention on Daily Functioning in Older People}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.15837},
  pmid    = {30809801},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15837}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 76/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 44 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 76 of 100. Total 76 of 100.44 of the 58 points we could judge = 76 of 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 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
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 2 / 5 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,260 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 30809801)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 44 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100.
Total 76 / 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 Prevention trials

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →