33 ARE CLINICAL TRIALS RANDOMISING HOUSEHOLDS TO LIFESTYLE INTERVENTIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF COGNITIVE DECLINE FEASIBLE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Dementia is increasing in prevalence worldwide. Several lifestyle factors have been identified as targets for dementia prevention, which may be more effective if targeted at households instead of an individual. To date there have been no clinical trials randomising households to lifestyle interventions of sleep, diet and/or physical activity to prevent cognitive decline. To inform future studies, qualitative approaches can give valuable in-depth insights into the values and beliefs of all household members towards behavioural change. Methods Semi structured interviews were carried out among eight households affected by cognitive impairment. Interview content was analysed, and important themes identified. Results Eighteen participants were interviewed within household pods. Among those, eight had cognitive impairment and the remainder were spouses or first-degree relatives living in the same home. Several themes of interest emerged including household members without dementia were more likely to report poor sleep habits; sleep was perceived the hardest behaviour to change; although most participants had healthy diets, most were interested in making a change and felt there was a strong link with nutrition and cognition; physical activity is challenging to adapt due to lack of motivation and focus when individuals are cognitively impaired and motivation to pursue physical activity in households centred on relaxation and social interaction. Conclusion This study identified beliefs and preferences of households towards lifestyle intervention trials. Barriers to study participation including risk of harm, complexity of intervention and deviation from routine emerged during discussions. Findings from this study should be used to inform future clinical trial protocols and future qualitative studies should explore acceptability and feasibility of digital intervention applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".