Home › Research › Disparities
Contribution of socioeconomic, lifestyle, and medical risk factors to disparities in dementia and mortality
Jordan Weiss. SSM - population health, 2021-12-09
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Extensive literature in the United States documents racial/ethnic and gender disparities in the incidence and prevalence of dementia yet few studies have examined how race/ethnicity and gender intersect to shape inequalities in the risk of dementia. Moreover, few studies have examined heterogeneity in the contribution of known risk factors to dementia across these demographic strata while properly accounting for the semi-competing risk of death. I calculated the proportion of dementia cases attributable to socioeconomic, lifestyle, and medical risk factors across demographic subgroups using nationally representative data from the US-based Health and Retirement Study for the years 2000-2016 and a multistate framework that accounts for the semi-competing risk of death. Socioeconomic resources contributed to the largest number of dementia cases but the magnitude of this contribution varied across strata defined by race/ethnicity and gender. The greatest potential for dementia prevention was observed among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic men and women, supporting an intersectionality approach, and underscoring the need for culturally sensitive intervention and public health initiatives to address the growing burden of dementia. Taken together, work demonstrates the potential benefit of taking an intersectional approach to understanding disparities in dementia.
Key findings
- Taken together, work demonstrates the potential benefit of taking an intersectional approach to understanding disparities in dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (SSM - population health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” 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 | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 34977324) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Weiss, J. (2021). Contribution of socioeconomic, lifestyle, and medical risk factors to disparities in dementia and mortality. SSM - population health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100979
Vancouver
Weiss J. Contribution of socioeconomic, lifestyle, and medical risk factors to disparities in dementia and mortality. SSM - population health. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100979. PMID: 34977324.
BibTeX
@article{weiss2021-34977324,
author = {Weiss, Jordan},
title = {{Contribution of socioeconomic, lifestyle, and medical risk factors to disparities in dementia and mortality}},
journal = {SSM - population health},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100979},
pmid = {34977324},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100979}
}
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.