Acceptability and fidelity of the multidomain 'Brain Bootcamp' dementia risk reduction program: a mixed-methods approach.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMC Public Health Pub Date : 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1186/s12889-025-21641-7
Joyce Siette, Laura Dodds, Cristy Brooks, Kay Deckers, Sebastian Köhler, Christopher J Armitage
{"title":"Acceptability and fidelity of the multidomain 'Brain Bootcamp' dementia risk reduction program: a mixed-methods approach.","authors":"Joyce Siette, Laura Dodds, Cristy Brooks, Kay Deckers, Sebastian Köhler, Christopher J Armitage","doi":"10.1186/s12889-025-21641-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventions targeting dementia prevention typically lack comprehensive exploration of feasibility, acceptability, and long-term translation factors prior to deployment. Our study aimed to explore the acceptability, fidelity and participants' experiences with Brain Bootcamp, a multi-domain behaviour change intervention targeting reduced dementia risk and increased dementia risk factor awareness for older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Conducted in New South Wales, Australia, from January to August 2021, our concurrent single-group mixed-methods feasibility study involved post-intervention surveys and qualitative interviews with community-dwelling older adults. Descriptive statistics were used to assess acceptability of the methods, outcome measures, and fidelity to the program components. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews explored participant experiences, preferences, barriers, and recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 853 enrolled participants, only 355 completed the program (41.6%). Among these participants, 79.1% agreed that the intervention improved their awareness of dementia risk factors, and 92.4% expressed intent to continue maintaining brain healthy behaviours post- program. Participants typically set 2-4 modifiable risk factor lifestyle goals, which were most often related to physical activity (83.7%). A majority (91.5%) successfully achieved at least one brain health goal. Qualitative analyses (n = 195) identified three overarching themes on the role of education on behaviour modification (i.e., the transformative role of the program in enhancing knowledge about dementia prevention and fostering behavioral modifications), psychological considerations (e.g., intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation on their engagement and perception of the program) and future directions (e.g., sustainability concerns and the need for tailored strategies for specific demographics).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While Brain Bootcamp had low completion rates, those who completed the program reported high acceptability. Future refinements, incorporating targeted strategies and enhanced participant support and communication, will facilitate pragmatic initiatives.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>ACTRN12621000165886.</p>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"619"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11829373/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21641-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interventions targeting dementia prevention typically lack comprehensive exploration of feasibility, acceptability, and long-term translation factors prior to deployment. Our study aimed to explore the acceptability, fidelity and participants' experiences with Brain Bootcamp, a multi-domain behaviour change intervention targeting reduced dementia risk and increased dementia risk factor awareness for older adults.

Methods: Conducted in New South Wales, Australia, from January to August 2021, our concurrent single-group mixed-methods feasibility study involved post-intervention surveys and qualitative interviews with community-dwelling older adults. Descriptive statistics were used to assess acceptability of the methods, outcome measures, and fidelity to the program components. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews explored participant experiences, preferences, barriers, and recommendations.

Results: Out of 853 enrolled participants, only 355 completed the program (41.6%). Among these participants, 79.1% agreed that the intervention improved their awareness of dementia risk factors, and 92.4% expressed intent to continue maintaining brain healthy behaviours post- program. Participants typically set 2-4 modifiable risk factor lifestyle goals, which were most often related to physical activity (83.7%). A majority (91.5%) successfully achieved at least one brain health goal. Qualitative analyses (n = 195) identified three overarching themes on the role of education on behaviour modification (i.e., the transformative role of the program in enhancing knowledge about dementia prevention and fostering behavioral modifications), psychological considerations (e.g., intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation on their engagement and perception of the program) and future directions (e.g., sustainability concerns and the need for tailored strategies for specific demographics).

Conclusions: While Brain Bootcamp had low completion rates, those who completed the program reported high acceptability. Future refinements, incorporating targeted strategies and enhanced participant support and communication, will facilitate pragmatic initiatives.

Clinical trial number: ACTRN12621000165886.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
多领域“大脑训练营”痴呆症风险降低计划的可接受性和保真度:混合方法方法。
背景:针对痴呆症预防的干预措施在部署之前通常缺乏对可行性、可接受性和长期转化因素的全面探索。本研究旨在探讨脑训练营(Brain Bootcamp)的可接受性、保真度和参与者体验。脑训练营是一种多领域行为改变干预,旨在降低老年人痴呆风险,提高老年人痴呆风险因素意识。方法:我们于2021年1月至8月在澳大利亚新南威尔士州进行了单组混合方法可行性研究,包括干预后调查和对社区居住老年人的定性访谈。描述性统计用于评估方法的可接受性、结果测量和对计划组成部分的忠实度。半结构化访谈的主题分析探讨了参与者的经历、偏好、障碍和建议。结果:在853名参与者中,只有355人完成了该计划(41.6%)。在这些参与者中,79.1%的人认为干预提高了他们对痴呆危险因素的认识,92.4%的人表示打算在项目结束后继续保持大脑健康的行为。参与者通常设定2-4个可修改的风险因素生活方式目标,这些目标通常与身体活动有关(83.7%)。大多数(91.5%)成功实现了至少一个大脑健康目标。定性分析(n = 195)确定了三个总体主题,即教育在行为改变方面的作用(即,该计划在提高痴呆症预防知识和促进行为改变方面的变革作用)、心理考虑(例如,他们参与和感知该计划的内在动机与外在动机)和未来方向(例如,可持续性问题和针对特定人口统计的量身定制战略的需求)。结论:虽然大脑训练营的完成率很低,但那些完成项目的人报告了很高的可接受性。未来的改进,包括有针对性的战略和加强参与者的支持和沟通,将促进务实的倡议。临床试验编号:ACTRN12621000165886。
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
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
期刊最新文献
An updated pharmacovigilance evidence from U.S. tobacco problem reports following the FDA safety communication on e-cigarettes and seizures. Understanding Substance Use in Alaska Native Youth- A Social Network Perspective. Self-rated health and mental health before and during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: the population-based German National Cohort (NAKO) study. Electronic gambling engagement and psychosocial outcomes among students at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria: a theory of planned behavior perspective. Trends and determinants of pneumococcal vaccine uptake among U.S. adults, 2019-2024: a pooled cross-sectional analysis.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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