Background
Methods
Search strategy
Eligibility criteria
Data extraction
Results
Study, Year (reference) | N1 | Age, mean y (SD) | Gender2 (F/M, %) | Cognitive Impairment Tool & Baseline Score | Study Design | Intervention Duration3 | Intervention Category & Setting | Control | Harms |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Varriano, 2020 [31] | 7 | O: 79.1 (6.7) | 57/43 | MoCA O: 21.2 (2.9) | RCT* | 12 weeks | Exercise; vestibular exercises N/R | Usual care | Falls, but unclear if due to intervention |
Goldberg, 2019 [32] | 60 | O: 76 (range 65–91) | 43/57 | MMSE O: 25.6 (3.1); I: 24.8 (3.6); 26.2 (3.2); C: 25.9 (2.4) | RCT* | 12 months | Exercise; Balance, strength, dual-task training, gait re-education Home-based | Single falls prevention assessment | 19 recorded adverse events (5 non-serious but intervention related) |
Padala, 2017 [33] | 30 | O: 73.0 (6.2); I: 72.1 (5.3); C: 73.9 (7.1) | 37/63 | MMSE O: 22.9 (2.2); I: 23.3 (2.2); C: 22.7 (2.3) | RCT | 8 weeks | Exercise; Wii-fit (yoga, strength, aerobics, balance) Home-based | Self-paced walking program | None study related |
Zieschang, 2017 [34] | 122 | I: 82.1 (6.6); C: 82.2 (6.7) | 74/262 | MMSE I: 21.6 (2.9); C: 21.9 (3.3) | RCT | 3 months | Exercise; progressive resistance and functional training (activities of daily living, balance, walking, gait) N/R | Seated motor training exercises | N/R |
Sungkarat, 2017 [35] | 66 | I: 68.3 (6.7); C: 67.5 (7.3) | 50/50 | MoCA, MMSE I: MoCA: 21.2 (3.4), MMSE: 26.5 (1.7); C: MoCA: 20.4 (3.8), MMSE: 25.8 (2.3) | RCT | 15 weeks | Exercise; Tai Chi Community-centre and home-based | Educational material covering information related to cognitive impairment and fall prevention | No adverse events found |
Schwenk, 2016 [36] | 22 | O: 78.2 (8.7); I: 77.8 (6.9); C: 79.0 (10.4) | 55/45 | MoCA O: 23.3 (2.6); I: 23.3 (3.1); C: 22.4 (3.0) | RCT* | 4 weeks | Exercise; Balance (ankle point-to-point reaching tasks and virtual obstacle-crossing tasks) Research centre | Usual care | No training-related adverse events occurred |
Montero-Odasso, 2019 [41] | 60 | O: 75.28 (7.18); I: 73.45 (5.74); C: 77.24 (8.11) | 45/55 | MMSE, MoCA O: sMMSE: 27.47 (1.96), MoCA: 23.60 (2.52); I: sMMSE: 27.42 (2.19), MoCA: 23.19 (2.55); C: sMMSE: 27.52 (1.72), MoCA: 22.97 (2.37) | RCT | 6 months | Medication or vitamin supplement; Donepezil Home-based | Placebo | No major adverse events requiring treatment were reported |
Chen, 2018 [39] | 30 | I: 77.3 (9.4); C: 77.3 (10.0) | 50/50 | MMSE, CDR I: MMSE: 16.4 (7.3), CDR: 0.5 = 6, 1.0 = 6, 2.0 = 3; C: MMSE: 17.9 (3.7), CDR: 0.5 = 3, 1.0 = 9, 2.0 = 1 | RCT | 2 months | Multifactorial; Musical dual-task training (physical and cognitive tasks) Community/research centre | Non-musical cognitive tasks and walking exercises | No adverse events reported |
Kim, 2017 [40] | 30 | I: 82.0 (4.6); C: 80.9 (3.4) | 20/80 | MMSE-Korea I: 15.5 (2.9); C: 15.6 (2.4) | CCT | 12 weeks | Multifactorial; physical activities, cognitive activities, activities of daily living, music activities Community centre | Usual care | N/R |
Wesson, 2013 [1] | 22 | I: 78.7 (4.2); C: 80.9 (5.0) | 41/59 | ACE-R, MMSE I: ACE-R: 67.8 (12.6), MMSE: 24.5 (3.1); C: ACE-R: 62.5 (14.2), MMSE: 22.5 (4.3) | RCT* | 12 weeks | Multifactorial; strength and balance exercises, home hazard reduction Home-based | Usual care, health promotion brochures on fall prevention and home safety | No serious adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Minor complaints relating to stiffness, dizziness and mild joint pain (n = 4; 36%) were reported. |
Suttanon, 2013 [37] | 40 | O: 81.90 (5.72); I: 83.42 (5.10); C: 80.52 (6.01) | 63/37 | MMSE I: 20.89 (4.74); C: 21.67 (4.43) | RCT* | 6 months | Exercise; balance and strength exercises, walking program Home-based | Education and information sessions on the topic of dementia and ageing | There were no falls or other serious adverse events associated with the intervention |
Hernandez, 2010 [38] | 20 | O: 78.5 (6.8); I: 77.7 (7.6); C: 84.0 (6.1) | N/R | MMSE I: 16.4 (6.7); C: 14.2 (5.1) | CCT | 6 months | Exercise; stretching, weight training, circuits, dance, recreational activities, relaxation N/R | Usual care | N/R |
Overall RE-AIM summary
Study (reference) | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RE-AIM Element | Criteria | Varriano, 2020 (32) | Goldberg, 2019 (33) | Padala, 2017 (34) | Zieschang, 2017 (35) | Sungkarat, 2017 (36) | Schwenk, 2016 (37) | Montero-Odasso, 2019 (42) | Chen, 2018 (40) | Kim, 2017 (41) | Wesson, 2013 (1) | Suttanon, 2013 (38) | Hernandez, 2010 (39) | Total |
Reach | Described target population | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 12 |
Demographic, behavioral information about target population | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 12 | |
Method to identify the target population | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 10 | |||
Recruitment strategies | x | x | x | x | x | x | 6 | |||||||
Inclusion/exclusion criteria for individuals | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 11 | ||
Eligible, invited (exposed to recruitment) potential participants | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 10 | |||
Sample size | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 12 | |
Individual participation rate (sample size/eligible invited potential participants) | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 10 | |||
Comparisons between the target population and the study sample | x | 1 | ||||||||||||
Statistical comparisons between the target population and the study sample | x | 1 | ||||||||||||
Cost of recruitment | 0 | |||||||||||||
Qualitative methods to measure reach | 0 | |||||||||||||
Effectiveness | Report of mediators | x | 1 | |||||||||||
Report of moderators | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 7 | ||||||
Intent-to-treat | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 7 | ||||||
Imputation procedures | x | x | x | x | x | 5 | ||||||||
Quality-of-life measures | x | x | x | x | x | 5 | ||||||||
Unintended consequences measures/results | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 9 | ||||
Percent attrition (at program completion) | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 11 | ||
Cost-effectiveness | 0 | |||||||||||||
Qualitative methods to measure efficacy/effectiveness | x | 1 | ||||||||||||
Adoption, setting | Eligible, invited potential settings | 0 | ||||||||||||
Number of participating settings | x | x | x | x | 4 | |||||||||
Setting participation rate | 0 | |||||||||||||
Description of the targeted location | 0 | |||||||||||||
Inclusion/exclusion criteria of the setting | 0 | |||||||||||||
Description of intervention location | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 9 | ||||
Method to identify the setting | 0 | |||||||||||||
Comparisons between the targeted and participating settings | 0 | |||||||||||||
Statistical comparisons between the targeted and participating settings | 0 | |||||||||||||
Average number of persons served per setting | 0 | |||||||||||||
Adoption, provider/staff | Eligible, invited potential providers (staff) | 0 | ||||||||||||
Number of participating providers (staff) | 0 | |||||||||||||
Provider (staff) participation rate | 0 | |||||||||||||
Method to identify target providers | 0 | |||||||||||||
Level of expertise of providers | x | x | x | x | x | x | 6 | |||||||
Inclusion/exclusion criteria for providers | 0 | |||||||||||||
Comparisons between targeted and participating providers (staff) | 0 | |||||||||||||
Statistical comparisons between targeted and participating providers (staff) | 0 | |||||||||||||
Measures of cost adoption | 0 | |||||||||||||
Dissemination beyond originally planned | 0 | |||||||||||||
Qualitative methods to measure adoption | 0 | |||||||||||||
Implementation | Theory-based | x | x | x | x | 4 | ||||||||
Engagement to inform intervention | x | x | x | x | 4 | |||||||||
Number of intervention contacts | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 12 | |
Timing of intervention contacts | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 11 | ||
Duration of intervention contacts | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | |||||
Extent protocol delivered as intended (fidelity) | x | x | 2 | |||||||||||
Consistency of implementation across settings or providers | x | x | 2 | |||||||||||
Tailoring of intervention | x | x | x | x | 4 | |||||||||
Participant attendance/completion rates | x | x | x | x | x | x | 6 | |||||||
Measure of intervention cost | 0 | |||||||||||||
Qualitative methods to measure implementation | x | x | x | x | 4 | |||||||||
Maintenance | Follow-up outcome measures at some duration after intervention termination | x | x | x | 3 | |||||||||
Attrition/loss to follow-up of individuals | x | 1 | ||||||||||||
Qualitative methods to measure individual maintenance of the intervention | 0 | |||||||||||||
Intervention alignment with the organization’s mission | 0 | |||||||||||||
Maintenance of the program after completion of the study | 0 | |||||||||||||
Modifications made to the original program | 0 | |||||||||||||
Institutionalization of the program in the setting or system | 0 | |||||||||||||
Attrition/loss to follow-up of settings | 0 | |||||||||||||
Qualitative methods to measure organizational maintenance/ sustainability | 0 | |||||||||||||
TOTAL FOR STUDY | 15 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 13 | 20 | 11 | 23 | 22 | 10 |