Cited by 42Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesCognitive Functions and Memory

Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: Protocol for a Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Study

Open access
Smith, Glenn, Chandler, Melanie, Locke, Dona EC, Fields, Julie, Phatak, Vaishali, Crook, Julia, Hanna, Sherrie, Lunde, Angela +20 more·2017·JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Currently, people at risk for dementia and their caregivers are confronted with confusing choices about what behavioral interventions are most effective. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine which empirically supported behavioral interventions most impact the outcomes highly valued by patients with mild cognitive impairment and their partners. METHODS: This protocol describes a comparative effectiveness trial targeting 300 participants with mild cognitive impairment and their study partners. The trial is being conducted at the Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and the University of Washington in Seattle. The study examines the contribution of five behavioral interventions (yoga, memory compensation training, computerized cognitive training, support groups, and wellness education) on primary outcomes of participant and partner quality of life and self-efficacy. In this unique 10-day multicomponent intervention, groups of couples were randomized to have one of the five interventions withheld while receiving the other four. Although the longitudinal follow-up is still under way, enrollment results are available and reported. RESULTS: In total, 272 couples have been enrolled in the trial and follow-up visits continue. Outcomes will be assessed at the end-of-intervention and 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups. We anticipate reporting on our primary and secondary outcomes across time points in the next 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes the protocol for a randomized comparative effectiveness study of behavioral interventions to prevent or delay dementia. We describe of the rationale, design, power analysis, and analysis plan. Also because enrollment is complete and we are in follow-up phases of the study, we have included enrollment data from the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02265757; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ctsshow/ NCT02265757 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ueRfwSYv).

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 · 10.2196/resprot.8103

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • With regard to mood, well-being and quality of life, no therapeutic effects in MCI patients, neither at short-term (3 months) nor at long-term (24 months) follow-up, were detected in most studies, including four randomized controlled trials and one randomized non-controlled trial.

    “With regard to mood, well-being and quality of life no therapeutic effects in MCI patients, neither at short-term (3 months) nor at long-term (24 months) follow-up, were detected in most studies, including four randomized controlled trials [48–51, 54, 59, 60] and one randomized non-controlled trial [52, 53].”

    From Psychotherapeutic interventions in individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s dementia: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [52]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Long-term follow-up assessments (6 or more months post-intervention) were described in 14 publications.

    “Long-term follow-up assessments (6 or more months post-intervention) were described in 14 publications [37, 39, 43, 48, 49, 51–53, 59, 60, 62, 63, 68, 69].”
  • A total of 10 research groups described psychoeducational interventions in individuals with MCI in addition to cognitive rehabilitation, cognitive training, mindfulness-based stress reduction, behavioral activation, or enriched by a recovery model approach.

    “A total of 10 research groups described psychoeducational interventions in addition to cognitive rehabilitation [38, 50], cognitive training [52, 53, 59, 60, 65], mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) [46, 47, 57, 58], behavioral activation [44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 54], or enriched by a recovery model approach [67]”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [11]US Office of Disease Prevention Health Promotion Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: Report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2nd edition 1996 Washington, DC US Department of Health and Human Services
  2. [35]Murdaugh CL Insel K Schumaker SA Ockene JK Riekert KA Problems with adherence in the elderly The Handbook of Health Behaviour Change, 3rd ed 1998 New York Springer Publishing Company 499 518
  3. [36]Resnick B Galik E Shim Nahm E Shaughnessy M Michael K Shumaker SA Ockene JK Reikert KA Optimizing adherence in older adults with cognitive impairment The Handbook of Health Behavior Change, 3rd ed 2009 New York Springer Publishing Company 519- 544

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, G., Chandler, M., Locke, D. E., Fields, J., Phatak, V., Crook, J., Hanna, S., Lunde, A., Morris, M., Graff-Radford, M., Hughes, C. A., Lepore, S., Cuc, A., Caselli, M., Hurst, D., Wethe, J., Francone, A., Eilertsen, J., Lucas, P., Hoffman Snyder, C., Kuang, L., Becker, M., Dean, P., Diehl, N., Lofquist, M., Vanderhook, S., Myles, D., & Cochran, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Nebraska Medical Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Glenn
Venue
JMIR Research Protocols
Published
2017-11-27
Volume
6
Issue
11
Pages
e223
ISSN
1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2768481555
Cited by
42
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P50AG005136)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
dementia prevention, mild cognitive impairment, behavioral interventions, couples, yoga, computerized cognitive training, support groups, wellness education, quality of life, self-efficacy, caregivers, comparative effectiveness

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