Abstract
Introduction: Multidomain interventions to address modifiable risk factors for dementia are promising, but require more cost-effective, scalable delivery. This study investigated the feasibility of the “Active Brains” digital behavior change intervention and its trial procedures.
Materials and methods: Active Brains aims to reduce cognitive decline by promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and online cognitive training. We conducted 12-month parallel-design randomized controlled feasibility trials of “Active Brains” amongst “lower cognitive scoring” (n = 180) and “higher cognitive scoring” (n = 180) adults aged 60–85.
Results: We collected 67.2 and 76.1% of our 12-month primary outcome (Baddeley verbal reasoning task) data for the “lower cognitive score” and “higher cognitive score” groups, respectively. Usage of “Active Brains” indicated overall feasibility and satisfactory engagement with the physical activity intervention content (which did not require sustained online engagement), but engagement with online cognitive training was limited. Uptake of the additional brief telephone support appeared to be higher in the “lower cognitive score” trial. Preliminary descriptive trends in the primary outcome data might indicate a protective effect of Active Brains against cognitive decline, but further investigation in fully-powered trials is required to answer this definitively.
Discussion: Whilst initial uptake and engagement with the online intervention was modest, it was in line with typical usage of other digital behavior change interventions, and early indications from the descriptive analysis of the primary outcome and behavioral data suggest that further exploration of the potential protective benefits of Active Brains are warranted. The study also identified minor modifications to procedures, particularly to improve online primary-outcome completion. Further investigation of Active Brains will now seek to determine its efficacy in protecting cognitive performance amongst adults aged 60–85 with varied levels of existing cognitive performance.
Materials and methods: Active Brains aims to reduce cognitive decline by promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and online cognitive training. We conducted 12-month parallel-design randomized controlled feasibility trials of “Active Brains” amongst “lower cognitive scoring” (n = 180) and “higher cognitive scoring” (n = 180) adults aged 60–85.
Results: We collected 67.2 and 76.1% of our 12-month primary outcome (Baddeley verbal reasoning task) data for the “lower cognitive score” and “higher cognitive score” groups, respectively. Usage of “Active Brains” indicated overall feasibility and satisfactory engagement with the physical activity intervention content (which did not require sustained online engagement), but engagement with online cognitive training was limited. Uptake of the additional brief telephone support appeared to be higher in the “lower cognitive score” trial. Preliminary descriptive trends in the primary outcome data might indicate a protective effect of Active Brains against cognitive decline, but further investigation in fully-powered trials is required to answer this definitively.
Discussion: Whilst initial uptake and engagement with the online intervention was modest, it was in line with typical usage of other digital behavior change interventions, and early indications from the descriptive analysis of the primary outcome and behavioral data suggest that further exploration of the potential protective benefits of Active Brains are warranted. The study also identified minor modifications to procedures, particularly to improve online primary-outcome completion. Further investigation of Active Brains will now seek to determine its efficacy in protecting cognitive performance amongst adults aged 60–85 with varied levels of existing cognitive performance.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 962873 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Frontiers in Public Health |
| Volume | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 20 Sept 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We thank the University of Exeter and Kings College London for their collaboration in accessing their PROTECT platform Cognitive Tests and Brain Training games.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (Reference Number RP-PG-0615-20014).
Funding Information:
LY is a member of the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioral Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol, and the NIHR ARC West. KB's research portfolio is part funded by NIHR ARC Wessex. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Essery, Pollet, Bradbury, Western, Grey, Denison-Day, Smith, Hayter, Kelly, Somerville, Stuart, Becque, Zhang, Slodkowska-Barabasz, Mowbray, Ferrey, Yao, Zhu, Kendrick, Griffin, Mutrie, Robinson, Brooker, Griffiths, Robinson, Rossor, Ballard, Gallacher, Rathod, Gudgin, Phillips, Stokes, Niven, Little and Yardley.