lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Cons and Pros of Epidemiological Versus Experimental Approaches to Answer Questions About Risk and Protective Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Personal Journey
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Psychology. Karolinska Institutet.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0057-0308
2018 (English)In: SAGE Research Methods Cases, London: Sage Publications, 2018, p. 1-17Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This text is a personal account of the research process that led to a dissertation about the long-term relevance of social and emotional factors for cognitive health. It describes how research ideas and methodological concerns developed out of the first results where people who had lived alone, especially after being widowed already in midlife, had a high risk increase for Alzheimer’s disease over two decades later. A second study investigated the associations between feelings of hopelessness in midlife and cognitive health in later life. Both of these studies used an epidemiological association approach with logistic regression as the main statistical method, including adjustments for several relevant variables. To address the methodological concerns in the epidemiological association approach, primarily the risk of reverse causation and confounding variables, a subsequent study applied a randomized control experimental design. In this study, the effects on brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels from different types of activities were measured in healthy elderly persons through a within-subject cross-over design. The case study illustrates the compromises that had to be made through this methodological shift in relation to the original research question—compromises in terms of real-life outcomes and exposures in exchange for experimental control and establishment of causality. The relative merits and limitations of three main approaches are finally summarized in light of these experiences: experimental studies on animals and on humans and epidemiological associations in humans. The examples are from research on dementia, but should be relevant for many other research questions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: Sage Publications, 2018. p. 1-17
Keyword [en]
Methodology, Dementia, Alzheimer's disease
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Research subject
Social Sciences, Psychology; Medicine, Gerontology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-71726DOI: 10.4135/9781526430649ISBN: 9781526430649 (electronic)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-71726DiVA, id: diva2:1192055
Available from: 2018-03-21 Created: 2018-03-21 Last updated: 2018-03-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Håkansson, Krister

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Håkansson, Krister
By organisation
Department of Psychology
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 64 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf