Development of a Multidomain Composite Intervention Engagement Score in the U.S. POINTER Trial

Abstract Background Multidomain lifestyle interventions have shown promise to slow cognitive decline and possibly prevent dementia. However, challenges arise in analyzing and interpreting treatment response when participants vary in their adherence to intervention components. The U.S. POINTER trial, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized 2‐year clinical trial, is investigating the impact of lifestyle interventions on cognition in older adults at risk of cognitive decline. Methods Four composite scores are proposed to assess engagement in the POINTER multidomain intervention. Results Composite score one was based on the U.S. POINTER Prescription adherence goals for three intervention domains (physical activity, diet, brain training). For this composite score, values range from 0 to 1.25, where “1” signifies the adherence goal was met, and “1.25” indicates the goal was exceeded (Table 1). The composite score is the sum of values across domains. Composite score two was constructed using Consistent Intervals , maintaining consistent scaling between the measurement of intervention domains and the values. The composite score is the sum of the values across the three domains, each ranging 0 to 1 (Table 1). Composite score three employed a Proportional Approach , measuring engagement in the three intervention domains as a proportion of achieved U.S. POINTER prescription goals. The composite score is the sum of values across domains. Composite score four utilized Exploratory Factor Analysis to identify optimal weighting for each domain’s adherence scores, aiming for a comprehensive assessment of participants' behavior. Missing data are examined in two ways: (a) assume missing data indicates no adherence and assign zero, and (b) multiple imputation to predict missing values before composite calculation. Properties of the four composites are examined using simulated datasets in preparation for later use in U.S. POINTER. Distributions, central tendency, and variability of adherence values for each composite score will be presented. Conclusion Four possible multidomain adherence composite scores are proposed, reflecting intervention engagement in U.S. POINTER. In the future, we will explore sensitivity of each composite score to detect treatment‐related change in cognition. This study will lay the foundation for broader applications in other multidomain trials with quantifiable adherence metrics, such as FINGER and LatAm‐FINGERS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.090791
Primary Topic
Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development of a Multidomain Composite Intervention Engagement Score in the U.S. POINTER Trial

Laura Lovato, Heather M. Snyder, Sarah Graef, Jennifer Ventrelle et al.
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
article

Development of a Multidomain Composite Intervention Engagement Score in the U.S. POINTER Trial

Laura Lovato, Heather M. Snyder, Sarah Graef, Jennifer Ventrelle, Xiaoyan Leng, Laura D. Baker, Mina Ghadimi Nouran, Jeffrey A. Katula, Nancy Woolard, Ismael Luis Calandri, Katelyn R Garcia, Sharon Wilmoth
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Multidomain lifestyle interventions have shown promise to slow cognitive decline and possibly prevent dementia. However, challenges arise in analyzing and interpreting treatment response when participants vary in their adherence to intervention components. The U.S. POINTER trial, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized 2‐year clinical trial, is investigating the impact of lifestyle interventions on cognition in older adults at risk of cognitive decline. Methods Four composite scores are proposed to assess engagement in the POINTER multidomain intervention. Results Composite score one was based on the U.S. POINTER Prescription adherence goals for three intervention domains (physical activity, diet, brain training). For this composite score, values range from 0 to 1.25, where “1” signifies the adherence goal was met, and “1.25” indicates the goal was exceeded (Table 1). The composite score is the sum of values across domains. Composite score two was constructed using Consistent Intervals , maintaining consistent scaling between the measurement of intervention domains and the values. The composite score is the sum of the values across the three domains, each ranging 0 to 1 (Table 1). Composite score three employed a Proportional Approach , measuring engagement in the three intervention domains as a proportion of achieved U.S. POINTER prescription goals. The composite score is the sum of values across domains. Composite score four utilized Exploratory Factor Analysis to identify optimal weighting for each domain’s adherence scores, aiming for a comprehensive assessment of participants' behavior. Missing data are examined in two ways: (a) assume missing data indicates no adherence and assign zero, and (b) multiple imputation to predict missing values before composite calculation. Properties of the four composites are examined using simulated datasets in preparation for later use in U.S. POINTER. Distributions, central tendency, and variability of adherence values for each composite score will be presented. Conclusion Four possible multidomain adherence composite scores are proposed, reflecting intervention engagement in U.S. POINTER. In the future, we will explore sensitivity of each composite score to detect treatment‐related change in cognition. This study will lay the foundation for broader applications in other multidomain trials with quantifiable adherence metrics, such as FINGER and LatAm‐FINGERS.

Alzheimer s & DementiaVol. 20(S7)
Alzheimer's Association (US), Rush University Medical Center (US), Fundación para la Lucha contra las Enfermedades Neurológicas de la Infancia (AR), Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL), Wake Forest University (US), Rush University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.