Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

LASI is India’s first ageing study and the world’s largest in terms of sample size, and will provide comprehensive longitudinal data for designing policies and programmes targeted toward the overall well-being of the older population. Additionally, as part of the recommended ethics protocols, participants received a copy of the consent forms, biomarker results report card and referral letters to the public health facility if their health measurements were found to be outside the normal range. For India, the overall household response rate was 95.8% and the overall individual response rate was 87.3%. Prevalence of key health measures adults aged less than 60 years and elderly aged 60 years or older in India, Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) Wave 1, 2017–18. the non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular diseases diabetes, chronic lung diseases and health conditions were found to be older adults in India. than a of the elderly aged 60 and older and a of the participants aged years or younger in India that they have been diagnosed with such as disease and than of the elderly aged 60 and older in and and and that they have been diagnosed with Additionally, of the elderly aged 60 and older that they have been diagnosed with diabetes The prevalence of diabetes is found to be higher in the states/union territories of and of the elderly aged 60 and older chronic lung lung diseases are more in the states/union territories of and than in other to health problems, the prevalence of based on the International is the elderly aged 60 and older in India. around one in elderly aged 60 and older diseases, with as the issues The prevalence of diseases, diabetes chronic lung diseases and problems are higher elderly men than a larger of elderly women than men that they have been diagnosed with anaemia, disease and any disease and any to health, around a of the elderly aged 60 and older at least one of activities of daily living of the elderly aged 60 and older at least one of instrumental activities of daily living were on cognitive and The older adults aged 45 and older was A higher of the elderly aged 60 and older than the adults aged years or younger were in the of in the cognitive were more the elderly aged 60 and of elderly men were found in the of with of elderly The measurements of physical health health such as blood lung risk and and such as and higher prevalence of these conditions than the a of undiagnosed of these diseases older adults in India. measuremen

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Perianayagam, A., Bloom, D. E., Lee, J., Parasuraman, S., Sekher, T. V., Mohanty, S. K., et al. (2021). Cohort Profile: The Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI). International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab266

Vancouver

Perianayagam A, Bloom DE, Lee J, Parasuraman S, Sekher TV, Mohanty SK, et al. Cohort Profile: The Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI). International Journal of Epidemiology. 2021. doi:10.1093/ije/dyab266. PMID: 35021187.

BibTeX

@article{perianayagam2021-35021187,
  author  = {Perianayagam, Arokiasamy and Bloom, David E. and Lee, Jinkook and Parasuraman, Sulabha and Sekher, T. V. and Mohanty, Sanjay Kumar and Chattopadhyay, Aparajita and Govil, Dipti and others},
  title   = {{Cohort Profile: The Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI)}},
  journal = {International Journal of Epidemiology},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1093/ije/dyab266},
  pmid    = {35021187},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab266}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 71/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 41 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 71 of 100. Total 71 of 100.41 of the 58 points we could judge = 71 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International Journal of Epidemiology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 250 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35021187)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 41 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100.
Total 71 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Costs and economics

Also tagged “deaths”

109 studies in the library carry the topic tag “deaths”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 109 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →