Methods and baseline characteristics for a social engagement technology-based randomized controlled trial for older adults

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101308
Elizabeth A. Lydon , George Mois , Shraddha A. Shende , Dillon Myers , Margaret K. Danilovich , Wendy A. Rogers , Raksha A. Mudar
{"title":"Methods and baseline characteristics for a social engagement technology-based randomized controlled trial for older adults","authors":"Elizabeth A. Lydon ,&nbsp;George Mois ,&nbsp;Shraddha A. Shende ,&nbsp;Dillon Myers ,&nbsp;Margaret K. Danilovich ,&nbsp;Wendy A. Rogers ,&nbsp;Raksha A. Mudar","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Growing evidence suggests that increasing opportunities for social engagement has the potential to support successful aging. However, many older adults may have limited access to in-person social engagement opportunities due to barriers such as transportation. We outline the development, design, methodology, and baseline characteristics of a randomized controlled trial that assessed the benefits of a social engagement intervention delivered through the OneClick video conferencing platform to older adults with varying levels of cognitive functioning.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Community-dwelling older adults with and without cognitive challenges were randomly assigned to a social engagement intervention group or a waitlist control group. Participants were asked to attend twice-weekly social engagement events for 8 weeks via OneClick. Outcomes included social engagement and technology acceptance for both groups at baseline, week-4, and week-8 assessments. As an extension, the waitlist control group had an opportunity to participate in the intervention, with outcomes assessed at weeks 12 and 16.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We randomly assigned 99 participants (mean age = 74.1 ± 6.7, range: 60–99), with 50 in the immediate intervention group and 49 in the waitlist control group. About half of the participants reported living alone (53.5%), with a third (31%) falling into the cognitively impaired range on global cognitive screening. The groups did not differ at baseline on any of the outcome measures.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Outcomes from this study will provide important information regarding the feasibility and efficacy of providing technology-based social engagement interventions to older adults with a range of cognitive abilities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 101308"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000553/pdfft?md5=e7bcd0d4b2dfafb6d16dbbfa20a8ca17&pid=1-s2.0-S2451865424000553-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Growing evidence suggests that increasing opportunities for social engagement has the potential to support successful aging. However, many older adults may have limited access to in-person social engagement opportunities due to barriers such as transportation. We outline the development, design, methodology, and baseline characteristics of a randomized controlled trial that assessed the benefits of a social engagement intervention delivered through the OneClick video conferencing platform to older adults with varying levels of cognitive functioning.

Methods

Community-dwelling older adults with and without cognitive challenges were randomly assigned to a social engagement intervention group or a waitlist control group. Participants were asked to attend twice-weekly social engagement events for 8 weeks via OneClick. Outcomes included social engagement and technology acceptance for both groups at baseline, week-4, and week-8 assessments. As an extension, the waitlist control group had an opportunity to participate in the intervention, with outcomes assessed at weeks 12 and 16.

Results

We randomly assigned 99 participants (mean age = 74.1 ± 6.7, range: 60–99), with 50 in the immediate intervention group and 49 in the waitlist control group. About half of the participants reported living alone (53.5%), with a third (31%) falling into the cognitively impaired range on global cognitive screening. The groups did not differ at baseline on any of the outcome measures.

Conclusions

Outcomes from this study will provide important information regarding the feasibility and efficacy of providing technology-based social engagement interventions to older adults with a range of cognitive abilities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于社交参与技术的老年人随机对照试验的方法和基线特征
背景越来越多的证据表明,增加社会参与机会有可能有助于成功步入老年。然而,由于交通等方面的障碍,许多老年人可能难以获得亲身参与社交的机会。我们概述了一项随机对照试验的开发、设计、方法和基线特征,该试验评估了通过 OneClick 视频会议平台向不同认知功能水平的老年人提供社会参与干预的益处。参与者被要求在 8 周内通过 OneClick 参加每周两次的社交活动。结果包括两组在基线、第 4 周和第 8 周评估时的社交参与度和技术接受度。结果我们随机分配了 99 名参与者(平均年龄 = 74.1 ± 6.7,范围:60-99 岁),其中即时干预组 50 人,候补对照组 49 人。约有一半的参与者表示自己独居(53.5%),其中三分之一(31%)的人在全球认知筛查中属于认知障碍范围。结论这项研究的结果将提供重要信息,说明为具有不同认知能力的老年人提供基于技术的社会参与干预的可行性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
期刊最新文献
The effects of alpha-lipoic acid transdermal patch for local subcutaneous fat reduction: A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial in overweight volunteers Noninvasive anatomical assessment for ruling out hemodynamically relevant coronary artery anomalies in adults – A comparison of coronary-CT to invasive coronary angiography: The NARCO study design Defining methods to improve eSource site start-up practices A Bayesian adaptive feasibility design for rare diseases Modeling severe uncontrolled asthma: Transitioning away from health states
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1