Third follow-up of the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE) cohort investigating determinants of cognitive, physical, and psychosocial wellbeing among the oldest old: the CAIDE85+ study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The oldest old is the fastest growing age group worldwide and the most prone to severe disability, especially in relation to loss of cognitive function. Improving our understanding of the predictors of cognitive, physical and psychosocial wellbeing among the oldest old can result in substantial benefits for the individuals and for the society as a whole. The Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE) study investigated risk factors and determinants of cognitive impairment in a population-based longitudinal cohort, which was first examined between 1972 and 1992, when individuals were in their midlife, and re-assessed in 1998 and 2005-2009. Most of the study participants are currently aged 85 years or older. We aim to re-examine the cohort's survivors and gain further insights on the mechanisms underlying both cognitive and overall healthy ageing at old age. METHODS: CAIDE85+ is the third follow-up of the CAIDE study participants. All individuals still alive and living in the Kuopio and Joensuu areas of Eastern Finland, from the original CAIDE cohort (two random samples, N = 2000 + ~ 900), will be invited to a re-examination. The assessment includes self-reported data related to basic demographics and lifestyle, as well as psychosocial and physical health status. Cognitive and physical evaluations are also conducted. Blood biomarkers relevant for dementia and ageing are assessed. Primary outcomes are the measurements related to cognition and daily life functioning (CERAD, Trail Making Test-A, Letter-Digit Substitution Test, Clinical Dementia Rating and Activities of Daily Living). Secondary endpoints of the study are outcomes related to physical health status, psychosocial wellbeing, as well as age-related health indicators. DISCUSSION: Through a follow-up of more than 40 years, CAIDE85+ will provide invaluable information on the risk and protective factors that contribute to cognitive and physical health, as well as ageing and longevity. STUDY REGISTRATION: The present study protocol has been registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (registration nr NCT03938727 , date 03.05.2019).

Cost-effectiveness of population-level physical activity interventions: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesizes the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of population-level interventions to promote physical activity. DATA SOURCE: A systematic literature search was conducted between May and August 2013 in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Only primary and preventive interventions aimed at promoting and maintaining physical activity in wide population groups were included. An economic evaluation of both effectiveness and cost was required. Secondary interventions and interventions targeting selected population groups or focusing on single individuals were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Interventions were searched for in six different categories: (1) environment, (2) built environment, (3) sports clubs and enhanced access, (4) schools, (5) mass media and community-based, and (6) workplace. DATA SYNTHESIS: The systematic search yielded 2058 articles, of which 10 articles met the selection criteria. The costs of interventions were converted to costs per person per day in 2012 U.S. dollars. The physical activity results were calculated as metabolic equivalent of task hours (MET-hours, or MET-h) gained per person per day. Cost-effectiveness ratios were presented as dollars per MET-hours gained. The intervention scale and the budget impact of interventions were taken into account. RESULTS: The most efficient interventions to increase physical activity were community rail-trails ($.006/MET-h), pedometers ($.014/MET-h), and school health education programs ($.056/MET-h). CONCLUSION: Improving opportunities for walking and biking seems to increase physical activity cost-effectively. However, it is necessary to be careful in generalizing the results because of the small number of studies. This review provides important information for decision makers.