Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40535511›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2025

Interventions for cognitive frailty: developing a Delphi consensus with multidisciplinary and multisectoral experts.

Carol A Holland, Nikolett Dravecz, Susan Broughton, Lynne A Barker, Fidelia Bature, Charlotte Clarke, Isaac M Danat, Sayani Das, Irundika H K Dias, Annabel Dawson and 15 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Carol A HollandCentre for Ageing Research (C4AR), Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Nikolett DraveczCentre for Ageing Research (C4AR), Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Susan BroughtonCentre for Ageing Research (C4AR), Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Lynne A BarkerSheffield Institute of Social Science, College of Social Science and Art, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Fidelia BatureInstitute of Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, United Kingdom.
Charlotte ClarkeWolfson Institute for Health & Wellbeing, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Isaac M DanatSheffield Institute of Social Sciences, College of Social Sciences and Arts, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Sayani DasDepartment of Social Work, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Irundika H K DiasAston Medical School and Aston Research Centre for Health in Ageing, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Annabel DawsonLay Contributor, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
M DixonNorthern Health Science Alliance (NHSA), Manchester, United Kingdom.
Amanda EllisonDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
David FaçalDepartment of Developmental and Educational Psychology, and Institute of Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Roland FinchLay Contributor, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Christopher J GaffneyCentre for Ageing Research (C4AR), Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Alan GowDepartment of Psychology, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Eirini KelaiditiFaculty of Sport, Technology and Health Sciences, St Mary's University Twickenham, London, United Kingdom.
Andrzej KlimczukSGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland.
Esperanza Navarro-PardoDepartment of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Pheobe SharrattCentre for Ageing Research (C4AR), Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Andrew SixsmithDepartment of Gerontology, STAR Institute, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Claudia K SuemotoDivision of Geriatrics, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lalu SuprawestaDepartment of Health and Sport Education, Faculty of Sport Science and Public Health, Mandalika Education University, Mataram, Indonesia.
Tamlyn WatermeyerDepartment of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne,, United Kingdom.
Sally Fowler DavisSchool of Allied Health and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The conjunction of physical frailty and cognitive impairment without dementia is described as Cognitive Frailty (CF). Indications that CF is potentially reversible have led to proposals that risk factors, symptoms or mechanisms of CF would be appropriate targets for interventions for prevention, delay or reversal. However, no study has brought experts together across sectors to determine targets, content or mode of interventions, and most resources on interventions are from the perspective of academic or clinical researchers only. This international Delphi consensus study brings together experts from academic and clinical research, lay people with lived experience of CF, informal carers, and professional care practitioners/clinicians. Methods: Three rounds of Delphi study were held to discern which factors and statements were agreed upon by the whole sample and which generated different views in those with differing expertise. A scoping review and Round 1 (29 participants) were used to gather initial statements. In Round 2, 58 people responded to statements and open text items, comprising 7 lab-based researchers, 27 researchers working with people, 14 people with lived experience or informal family carers, and 10 professional carers/clinicians. Percent agreement and qualitative responses were analyzed to provide a final set of statements which were checked by 38 respondents in Round 3. Results: Analysis of Round 2 quantitative data provided 74 statements on which there was at least 70% agreement and qualitative data produced a further 24 statements. These were combined to provide 90 statements for Round 3. There was Consensus for 89 of the statements. A few differences between the groups were observed at both stages. Discussion and conclusion: The consensus for statements associated with CF interventions provides a useful first step in defining health promotion activities and interventions. Given the prevalence and potential disability caused by CF in older populations, the consensus statements represent expert opinion that is inter-sectoral and will inform public health policies to support implementation of evidence-based prevention and intervention plans. This study is an important step toward changing current approaches, by including all stakeholders from the outset. Outcomes can be used to feed into co-creation of interventions for cognitive frailty.

Indexed as

cognitive frailty (CF)Delphi studyexpert consensusinterventionmultidisciplinarymulti-sectoral

Identifiers

PMID40535511
PMCPMC12174145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.