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 72 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background More evidence is needed to conclude that a specific program of exercise and/or cognitive training warrants prescription for the prevention of cognitive decline. We examined the effect of a group-based standard exercise program for older adults, with and without dual-task training, on cognitive function in older adults without dementia. Methods We conducted a proof-of-concept, single-blinded, 26-wk randomized controlled trial whereby participants recruited from preexisting exercise classes at the Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging in London, Ontario, were randomized to the intervention group (exercise + dual-task [EDT]) or the control group (exercise only [EO]). Each week (2 or 3 d · wk(-1)), both groups accumulated a minimum of 50 min of aerobic exercise (target 75 min) from standard group classes and completed 45 min of beginner-level square-stepping exercise. The EDT group was also required to answer cognitively challenging questions while doing beginner-level square-stepping exercise (i.e., dual-task training). The effect of interventions on standardized global cognitive function (GCF) scores at 26 wk was compared between the groups using the linear mixed effects model approach. Results Participants (n = 44; 68% female; mean [SD] age: 73.5 [7.2] yr) had on average, objective evidence of cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, mean [SD]: 24.9 [1.9]) but not dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination scores, mean [SD]: 28.8 [1.2]). After 26 wk, the EDT group showed greater improvement in GCF scores compared with the EO group (difference between groups in mean change [95% CI]: 0.20 SD [0.01-0.39], P = 0.04). Conclusions A 26-wk group-based exercise program combined with dual-task training improved GCF in community-dwelling older adults without dementia.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 72/100
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 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 2 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. 42 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 72 of 100. Total 72 of 100.42 of the 58 points we could judge = 72 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 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Medicine and science in sports and exercise)
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 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 44 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 2 / 2 Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (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 26285025)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 42 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100.
Total 72 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Gill, D. P., Gregory, M. A., Zou, G., Liu-Ambrose, T., Shigematsu, R., Hachinski, V., et al. (2016). The Healthy Mind, Healthy Mobility Trial: A Novel Exercise Program for Older Adults. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000000758

Vancouver

Gill DP, Gregory MA, Zou G, Liu-Ambrose T, Shigematsu R, Hachinski V, et al. The Healthy Mind, Healthy Mobility Trial: A Novel Exercise Program for Older Adults. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2016. doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000758. PMID: 26285025.

BibTeX

@article{gill2016-26285025,
  author  = {Gill, D. P. and Gregory, M. A. and Zou, G. and Liu-Ambrose, T. and Shigematsu, R. and Hachinski, V. and Fitzgerald, C. and Petrella, R. J.},
  title   = {{The Healthy Mind, Healthy Mobility Trial: A Novel Exercise Program for Older Adults}},
  journal = {Medicine and science in sports and exercise},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1249/mss.0000000000000758},
  pmid    = {26285025},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000000758}
}

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 →