针对初级保健中中年人痴呆风险降低干预措施的系统回顾。

IF 4.3 Q2 BUSINESS
Mary Tullipan, Johnson George, Parker Magin, Kali Godbee, Jane Ferns, Claire Frewin
{"title":"针对初级保健中中年人痴呆风险降低干预措施的系统回顾。","authors":"Mary Tullipan, Johnson George, Parker Magin, Kali Godbee, Jane Ferns, Claire Frewin","doi":"10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pathological changes of dementia are thought to commence in mid-life, making mid-life an attractive target for dementia risk reduction. This review assessed the current literature on multidomain dementia risk-reduction interventions in mid-life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE for eligible studies. Studies were included if (i) participants had a mean age between 45 and 65 years, (ii) the intervention was delivered in a primary care setting and targeted two or more dementia risk factors, and (iii) outcomes were change in cognitive function or change in risk score. Data was extracted and assessed for bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies were included. Participants' mean age ranged from 45.3 to 64.2 years. Interventions ranged from 10 weeks to 9.8 years and targeted between two and six dementia risk factors. There was a large variation in the type of outcome and statistical tests utilised across the included studies, impacting the ability to draw comparisons between the studies and draw conclusions regarding treatment effects. There was a high risk of bias in three of the studies and some concerns of bias in the other four studies. Two studies assessing dementia risk found a reduction in risk scores at their primary endpoint. None of the included studies found a statistically significant change in cognition from their interventions. This may be attributable in part to not assessing cognition prior to the interventions, limited risk factors being addressed, and the short follow-up/duration of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence for multidomain dementia risk-reduction interventions in mid-life is not definitive; however, given their substantive potential benefits and likely limited harms, they may be considered for implementation in clinical practice after further evaluation. Future trials that have longer follow-ups, target a broader range of dementia risk factors, and that use consistent outcome measures will be valuable. Strategies to maximise implementation of multidomain interventions and long-term effectiveness will enhance the evidence base for dementia prevention in primary care.</p>","PeriodicalId":22711,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"100187"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of targeted dementia risk reduction interventions in middle-aged adults in Primary Care.\",\"authors\":\"Mary Tullipan, Johnson George, Parker Magin, Kali Godbee, Jane Ferns, Claire Frewin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pathological changes of dementia are thought to commence in mid-life, making mid-life an attractive target for dementia risk reduction. This review assessed the current literature on multidomain dementia risk-reduction interventions in mid-life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE for eligible studies. Studies were included if (i) participants had a mean age between 45 and 65 years, (ii) the intervention was delivered in a primary care setting and targeted two or more dementia risk factors, and (iii) outcomes were change in cognitive function or change in risk score. Data was extracted and assessed for bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies were included. Participants' mean age ranged from 45.3 to 64.2 years. Interventions ranged from 10 weeks to 9.8 years and targeted between two and six dementia risk factors. There was a large variation in the type of outcome and statistical tests utilised across the included studies, impacting the ability to draw comparisons between the studies and draw conclusions regarding treatment effects. There was a high risk of bias in three of the studies and some concerns of bias in the other four studies. Two studies assessing dementia risk found a reduction in risk scores at their primary endpoint. None of the included studies found a statistically significant change in cognition from their interventions. This may be attributable in part to not assessing cognition prior to the interventions, limited risk factors being addressed, and the short follow-up/duration of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence for multidomain dementia risk-reduction interventions in mid-life is not definitive; however, given their substantive potential benefits and likely limited harms, they may be considered for implementation in clinical practice after further evaluation. Future trials that have longer follow-ups, target a broader range of dementia risk factors, and that use consistent outcome measures will be valuable. Strategies to maximise implementation of multidomain interventions and long-term effectiveness will enhance the evidence base for dementia prevention in primary care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22711,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"100187\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:痴呆症的病理变化被认为开始于中年,使中年成为痴呆症风险降低的一个有吸引力的目标。本综述评估了目前关于中年多领域痴呆风险降低干预措施的文献。方法:我们系统地检索MEDLINE、CINAHL和EMBASE,寻找符合条件的研究。如果:(i)参与者的平均年龄在45 - 65岁之间,(ii)干预是在初级保健环境中实施的,针对两个或两个以上的痴呆风险因素,(iii)结果是认知功能的改变或风险评分的改变,则纳入研究。提取数据并使用修订后的Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具评估偏倚。结果:纳入7项研究。参与者的平均年龄从45.3岁到64.2岁不等。干预措施从10周到9.8年不等,针对2到6个痴呆症风险因素。在纳入的研究中使用的结果和统计检验的类型存在很大差异,影响了在研究之间进行比较和得出有关治疗效果的结论的能力。其中三项研究存在高偏倚风险,另外四项研究存在偏倚风险。两项评估痴呆症风险的研究发现,在主要终点,风险评分有所降低。没有一项纳入的研究发现他们的干预在认知方面有统计学上的显著变化。这可能部分归因于在干预之前没有评估认知,解决的风险因素有限,以及研究的随访/持续时间短。结论:目前中年人多领域痴呆风险降低干预措施的证据尚不明确;然而,鉴于其实质性的潜在益处和可能有限的危害,在进一步评估后,可能会考虑在临床实践中实施。未来的试验如果有更长时间的随访,针对更广泛的痴呆风险因素,并使用一致的结果测量方法,将是有价值的。最大限度地实施多领域干预措施和长期有效性的战略将加强初级保健中预防痴呆症的证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic review of targeted dementia risk reduction interventions in middle-aged adults in Primary Care.

Background: Pathological changes of dementia are thought to commence in mid-life, making mid-life an attractive target for dementia risk reduction. This review assessed the current literature on multidomain dementia risk-reduction interventions in mid-life.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE for eligible studies. Studies were included if (i) participants had a mean age between 45 and 65 years, (ii) the intervention was delivered in a primary care setting and targeted two or more dementia risk factors, and (iii) outcomes were change in cognitive function or change in risk score. Data was extracted and assessed for bias using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.

Results: Seven studies were included. Participants' mean age ranged from 45.3 to 64.2 years. Interventions ranged from 10 weeks to 9.8 years and targeted between two and six dementia risk factors. There was a large variation in the type of outcome and statistical tests utilised across the included studies, impacting the ability to draw comparisons between the studies and draw conclusions regarding treatment effects. There was a high risk of bias in three of the studies and some concerns of bias in the other four studies. Two studies assessing dementia risk found a reduction in risk scores at their primary endpoint. None of the included studies found a statistically significant change in cognition from their interventions. This may be attributable in part to not assessing cognition prior to the interventions, limited risk factors being addressed, and the short follow-up/duration of the studies.

Conclusion: Current evidence for multidomain dementia risk-reduction interventions in mid-life is not definitive; however, given their substantive potential benefits and likely limited harms, they may be considered for implementation in clinical practice after further evaluation. Future trials that have longer follow-ups, target a broader range of dementia risk factors, and that use consistent outcome measures will be valuable. Strategies to maximise implementation of multidomain interventions and long-term effectiveness will enhance the evidence base for dementia prevention in primary care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The JPAD Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’Disease will publish reviews, original research articles and short reports to improve our knowledge in the field of Alzheimer prevention including: neurosciences, biomarkers, imaging, epidemiology, public health, physical cognitive exercise, nutrition, risk and protective factors, drug development, trials design, and heath economic outcomes.JPAD will publish also the meeting abstracts from Clinical Trial on Alzheimer Disease (CTAD) and will be distributed both in paper and online version worldwide.We hope that JPAD with your contribution will play a role in the development of Alzheimer prevention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信