Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38909256›Full record

Trial reportAlzheimer's research & therapy2024

Adherence to a lifestyle intervention - just a question of self-efficacy? Analysis of the AgeWell.de-intervention against cognitive decline.

Felix G Wittmann, Alexander Pabst, Andrea Zülke, Melanie Luppa, Anke Oey, Melanie Boekholt, Solveig Weise, Thomas Fankhänel, Robert P Kosilek, Christian Brettschneider and 10 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Felix G WittmannInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Phillip-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. felix.wittmann@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Alexander PabstInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Phillip-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Andrea ZülkeInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Phillip-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Melanie LuppaInstitute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Phillip-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Anke OeyInstitute for General Practice, Work Group Medical Statistics and IT-Infrastructure, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Melanie BoekholtInstitute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald (UMG), Greifswald, Germany.
Solveig WeiseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Saale, Germany.
Thomas FankhänelInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Saale, Germany.
Robert P KosilekInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christian BrettschneiderDepartment of Health Economics and Health Service Research, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Juliane DöhringInstitute of General Practice, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Laura LundenInstitute of General Practice, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Birgitt WieseInstitute for General Practice, Work Group Medical Statistics and IT-Infrastructure, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Wolfgang HoffmannInstitute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald (UMG), Greifswald, Germany.
Thomas FreseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Saale, Germany.
Jochen GensichenInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hans-Helmut KönigDepartment of Health Economics and Health Service Research, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Hanna KaduszkiewiczInstitute of General Practice, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Jochen René Thyrian *Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald (UMG), Greifswald, Germany.
Steffi G Riedel-Heller *Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP), Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Phillip-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GL1704A, 01GL1704B, 01GL1704C, 01GL1704D, 01GL1704E, 01GL1704F
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAim of this study was to detect predictors of better adherence to the AgeWell.de-intervention, a two-year randomized multi-domain lifestyle intervention against cognitive decline.

methodsData of 317 intervention group-participants comprising a risk group for dementia (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Ageing and Dementia (CAIDE) score of  ≥ 9; mean age 68.9 years, 49.5% women) from the AgeWell.de intervention study were analysed. Regression models with four blocks of predictors (sociodemographic, cognitive and psychosocial, lifestyle factors and chronic conditions) were run on adherence to the components of nutrition, enhancement of social and physical activity and cognitive training. Adherence to each component was operationalised by assessing the degree of goal achievement per component at up to seven time points during the intervention period, measured using a 5-point Likert scale (mean score of goal achievement).

resultsIncreasing age was negatively associated with adherence, while higher education positively predicted adherence. Participants with better mental state (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-score > 25) at baseline and higher self-efficacy adhered better. Diabetes and cardiovascular conditions were not associated with adherence, whereas smoking negatively affected adherence. Highest education and quitting smoking in the past were the only predictors associated with all four intervention components.

conclusionResults identified predictors for better and worse adherence. Particularly self-efficacy seems to be of considerable influence on adherence. This should be considered when designing future intervention trials.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (ref. number: DRKS00013555).

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionLife StyleSelf EfficacyAgedAged, 80 and overDementiaExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceAdherenceDementiaInterventionLifestylePredictorsPrevention

Identifiers

PMID38909256
PMCPMC11193217

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.