4.7 Article

Recruitment of a multi-site randomized controlled trial of aerobic exercise for older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment: The EXERT trial

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 1808-1817

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12401

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; clinical trial; exercise; lifestyle intervention; mild cognitive impairment; nonpharmacological; recruitment

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging [U19 AG010483]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective recruitment strategies for older adults with MCI into nonpharmacological intervention trials are lacking. However, mass mailings of infographic materials significantly increased recruitment rates in this 18-month exercise trial, accounting for 52% of randomized participants. Other sources included memory clinic rosters, electronic health records, and national/local registries.
Introduction Effective strategies to recruit older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) into nonpharmacological intervention trials are lacking. Methods Recruitment for EXERT, a multisite randomized controlled 18-month trial examining the effects of aerobic exercise on cognitive trajectory in adults with amnestic MCI, involved a diverse portfolio of strategies to enroll 296 participants. Results Recruitment occurred September 2016 through March 2020 and was initially slow. After mass mailings of 490,323 age- and geo-targeted infographic postcards and brochures, recruitment rates increased substantially, peaking at 16 randomizations/month in early 2020. Mass mailings accounted for 52% of randomized participants, whereas 25% were recruited from memory clinic rosters, electronic health records, and national and local registries. Other sources included news broadcasts, public service announcements (PSA), local advertising, and community presentations. Discussion Age- and geo-targeted mass mailing of infographic materials was the most effective approach in recruiting older adults with amnestic MCI into an 18-month exercise trial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据