Cited by 11Ethics in Clinical ResearchDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHealth Policy Implementation Science

A patient-centered analysis of enrollment and retention in a randomized behavioral trial of two cognitive rehabilitation interventions for mild cognitive impairment

Open access
Locke, D.E.C., Chandler Greenaway, M., Duncan, N., Fields, J.A., Cuc, A.V., Hoffman Snyder, C., Hanna, S., Lunde, A. +1 more·2014·The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A major potential barrier for studying behavioral interventions for patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is the willingness and ability of people to enroll in and adhere to behavioral interventions, especially when the intervention involves dyads of patients with MCI and support partners. Details regarding recruitment strategies and processes (such as number of dyads screened) are often missing from reports of behavioral trials. In addition, reports do not detail the reasons a potentially eligible candidate opts out of participation in a research study. OBJECTIVES: To describe the challenges and successes of enrollment and retention in a behavioral trial for persons with MCI and their care partners, and to better understand barriers to participation from the patient’s point of view. DESIGN: Multi-site, randomized trial. SETTING: Major medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Our accrual target for the study was 60 participants. Potential candidates were patients presenting to memory evaluation clinics whose resulting clinical diagnosis was MCI. A total of 200 consecutive potential candidates were approached about participating in the study across the three sites. INTERVENTION: Detailed recruitment and retention data of a randomized trial comparing two behavioral interventions (memory notebook training versus computer training) provided in two separate training time frames (10 days versus 6 weeks). MEASUREMENTS: Structured interview with those declining to participate in the trial. RESULTS: Overall recruitment 37% with a range of 13%-72% across sites. Overall retention 86% with a range of 74%-94% across sites. CONCLUSIONS: The primary barriers to enrollment from the patient’s perspective were distance to the treatment center and competing comprehensive behavioral programming. However, retention data suggest that those dyads who enroll in behavioral programs are highly committed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14283/jpad.2014.27

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Time commitment is a common barrier to engaging in interventions for older adults with MCI.

    “time commitment is a common barrier to engaging in interventions [53]”

    From A phase I trial of accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS for amnestic MCI (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Discussion says time commitment was a relatively low concern for this group, although it concerned some participants. It identifies travel distance and lack of a program partner as more prominent barriers, contrary to describing time commitment as a common barrier in this study. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Locke, D. E. C., Chandler Greenaway, M., Duncan, N., Fields, J. A., Cuc, A. V., Hoffman Snyder, C., Hanna, S., Lunde, A., & Smith, G. E.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Venue
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
1-8
ISSN
2274-5807 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2490505272
Cited by
11
References
32
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG031581, P30AG019610, P50AG025688, P50AG016574)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR012419)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
mild cognitive impairment, cognitive rehabilitation, behavioral interventions, clinical trial recruitment, participant retention, recruitment barriers, dyadic intervention, care partners, computer training, memory clinics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review