Effectiveness of online education for recruitment to an Alzheimer's disease prevention clinical trial. Issue 1 (16th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Saif, Nabeel; Berkowitz, Cara; Tripathi, Susmit; Scheyer, Olivia; Caesar, Emily; Hristov, Hollie; Hackett, Katherine; Rahman, Aneela; Knowlton, Newman; Sadek, George; Lee, Paige; McInnis, Mark; Isaacson, Richard S.
• Is Part Of: Alzheimer's & dementia. Volume 6:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-03-16
• Subjects: Alzheimer's disease -- Alzheimer's prevention clinical trials -- clinical trial screening -- digital tool -- e‐learning -- online education; Dementia -- Periodicals; Dementia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Alzheimer's disease -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Alzheimer's disease -- Periodicals; 616.831
• DOI: 10.1002/trc2.12006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-8737

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Low awareness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials is a recruitment barrier. To assess whether online education may affect screening rates for AD prevention clinical trials, we conducted an initial prospective cohort study (n = 10, 450) and subsequent randomized study (n = 351) using an online digital tool: AlzU.org. Methods: A total of 10, 450 participants were enrolled in an initial cohort study and asked to complete a six‐lesson course on AlzU.org, as well as a baseline and 6‐month follow‐up questionnaire. Participants were stratified into three groups based on lesson completion at 6 months: group 1 (zero to one lesson completed), group 2 (two to four lessons), and group 3 (five or more lessons). For the subsequent randomized‐controlled trial (RCT), 351 new participants were enrolled in a six‐lesson course (n = 180) versus a time‐neutral control (n = 171). Screening and enrollment in the Anti‐Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic AD (A4) clinical trial were reported via the 6‐month questionnaire and are the primary outcomes. Results: Cohort: 3.9% of group 1, 5% of group 2, and 8.4% of group 3 screened for the A4 trial. Significant differences were found among the groups ( P < 0.001). Post hoc analyses showed differences in A4 screening rates between groups 1 and 3 ( P < 0.001) and groups 2 and 3 ( P = 0.0194). There were no differences in enrollment among the three groups. RCT: 2.78% of the intervention group screened for A4 compared to 0% of controls ( P = 0.0611). Discussion: Online education via the AlzU.org digital tool may serve as an effective strategy to supplement clinical trial recruitment.