Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

2020 - 20212

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.König H-HSubject: search.filters.subject.intervention

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Recruitment and Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the “Sanadak” Trial: A Self-Help App for Syrian Refugees with Post-traumatic Stress
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2020-10) Röhr S; Jung FU; Renner A; Plexnies A; Hoffmann R; Dams J; Grochtdreis T; König H-H; Kersting A; Riedel-Heller SG
    Many Syrian refugees residing in Germany have been exposed to traumatizing events, while treatment options are scarce. Therefore, the self-help app “Sanadak” was developed to target post-traumatic stress in Syrian refugees. We aimed to inspect the recruitment and baseline characteristics of the participants in the trial, which is conducted to evaluate the app. Analyses were based on the recruitment sample (n = 170) and the trial sample (n = 133). Data were collected during structured face-to-face interviews in the Arabic language. Targeted outcomes included post-traumatic stress (primary; Post-traumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5/PDS-5) and depressive symptoms, anxiety, resilience, among others (secondary). Recruited individuals were M = 32.8 (SD = 11.2, range = 18–65) years old; 38.8% were women. The average PDS-5 score was 23.6 (SD = 13.2) regarding trauma exposure, which was most frequently related to experiencing military- or combat-related events (32.9%). Moreover, 46.5% had major depression and 51.8% showed low resilience. Anxiety was present in 40.6% of the trial participants. Psychological distress was high in Syrian refugees residing in Germany, enrolled in a trial targeting post-traumatic stress. This underlines the need for intervention. Our results provide important figures on the mental health of a not well-studied population group in Germany.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Recruitment and Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the AgeWell.de Study—A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Controlled Lifestyle Trial against Cognitive Decline
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2021-01) Röhr S; Zülke A; Luppa M; Brettschneider C; Weißenborn M; Kühne F; Zöllinger I; Samos F-AZ; Bauer A; Döhring J; Krebs-Hein K; Oey A; Czock D; Frese T; Gensichen J; Haefeli WE; Hoffmann W; Kaduszkiewicz H; König H-H; Thyrian JR; Wiese B; Riedel-Heller SG
    Targeting dementia prevention, first trials addressing multiple modifiable risk factors showed promising results in at-risk populations. In Germany, AgeWell.de is the first large-scale initiative investigating the effectiveness of a multi-component lifestyle intervention against cognitive decline. We aimed to investigate the recruitment process and baseline characteristics of the AgeWell.de participants to gain an understanding of the at-risk population and who engages in the intervention. General practitioners across five study sites recruited participants (aged 60–77 years, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia/CAIDE dementia risk score ≥ 9). Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with eligible participants, including neuropsychological assessments. We analyzed group differences between (1) eligible vs. non-eligible participants, (2) participants vs. non-participants, and (3) between intervention groups. Of 1176 eligible participants, 146 (12.5%) dropped out before baseline; the study population was thus 1030 individuals. Non-participants did not differ from participants in key sociodemographic factors and dementia risk. Study participants were M = 69.0 (SD = 4.9) years old, and 52.1% were women. The average Montreal Cognitive Assessment/MoCA score was 24.5 (SD = 3.1), indicating a rather mildly cognitively impaired study population; however, 39.4% scored ≥ 26, thus being cognitively unimpaired. The bandwidth of cognitive states bears the interesting potential for differential trial outcome analyses. However, trial conduction is impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring adjustments to the study protocol with yet unclear methodological consequences.