Recruitment of Older Veterans with Diabetes Risk for Alzheimer's Disease for a Randomized Clinical Trial of Computerized Cognitive Training.

Karran M, Guerrero-Berroa E, Schmeidler J, Lee PG, Alexander N, Nabozny M, West RK, Beeri MS, Sano M, Silverman JM. Recruitment of Older Veterans with Diabetes Risk for Alzheimer's Disease for a Randomized Clinical Trial of Computerized Cognitive Training. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : Jad. 2019 Jan 1; 69(2):401-411.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 11-285 – Computerized Cognitive Training to Improve Cognition in Diabetic Elderly Veterans

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is prevalent in the general United States population, and in the veteran population. T2DM has consistently been linked to increased risk for cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is practical and inexpensive cognitive interventions that is an alternative to medication. OBJECTIVE: To report the recruitment methods and challenges to date in an ongoing two-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) of CCT on cognitive function and T2DM management in an older non-demented veteran population. METHODS: Veterans are recruited primarily by targeted mailings or by direct contact at clinics and presentations. RESULTS: From 1,459 original contacts, 437 expressed initial interest, 111 provided informed consent, and 97 completed baseline assessments. Participants from the two VA Medical Centers differed in demographics and baseline characteristics. Comparing recruitment methods, the proportion of individuals contacted who were ultimately consented was significantly less from mailings (5%) than other sources (20%), primarily face- to-face clinic visits ( 2 (1) = 38.331, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mailings are cost-effective, but direct contact improved recruitment. Not using or lacking access to computers and ineligibility were major reasons for non-participation. Within-site comparisons of demographically diverse sites can address confounding of demographic and other site differences.