Home › Research › Treatments
Dementia assessment in primary care: results from a study in three managed care systems
Boise L, Neal MB, Kaye J.. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2004-06-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Plain-language summary
Background Prior research has found that dementia is often undiagnosed in primary care, but there has been limited research on whether physicians respond to symptoms, behaviors, or other events that may be indicators of dementia. Methods A cross-sectional cohort study design was used to screen 553 patients aged 75 years or older for dementia in 3 managed health care systems in Portland, Oregon. For participants determined to be cognitively impaired, their medical charts were reviewed to determine if they had experienced adverse events, had been clinically evaluated for possible dementia, had received a diagnosis of dementia, or had been offered treatment. Results Nearly 43% of participants were identified as cognitively impaired: 29.7% were classified as mildly cognitively impaired (MI) and 13.7% as moderately to severely cognitively impaired (MSI). Eighteen percent of the MI group and 34.8% of the MSI group had evidence in their medical chart of having been clinically evaluated for dementia. None of the MI group and only 4.3% of the MSI group had been offered a cholinesterase inhibitor. Nearly two thirds (61.6%) of the MI and three fourths (75.4%) of the MSI participants had experienced 1 or more adverse events. Of those who had experienced adverse events, less than one quarter (23.7%) in the MI group and less than one half (44.2%) in the MSI group had received a clinical evaluation for dementia. Conclusions These findings suggest the need for greater attention by primary care physicians to the cognitive functioning of older patients, especially patients who experience adverse events that may be indicators of dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Boise, L., Neal, M. B., & Kaye, J. (2004). Dementia assessment in primary care: results from a study in three managed care systems. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.6.m621
Vancouver
Boise L, Neal MB, Kaye J. Dementia assessment in primary care: results from a study in three managed care systems. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2004. doi:10.1093/gerona/59.6.m621. PMID: 15215282.
BibTeX
@article{boise2004-15215282,
author = {Boise, L. and Neal, M. B. and Kaye, J.},
title = {{Dementia assessment in primary care: results from a study in three managed care systems}},
journal = {The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences},
year = {2004},
doi = {10.1093/gerona/59.6.m621},
pmid = {15215282},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.6.m621}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results Nearly 43% of participants were identified as cognitively impaired: 29.7% were classified as mildly cognitively impaired (MI) and 13.7% as moderately to severely cognitively impaired (MSI).
- Conclusions These findings suggest the need for greater attention by primary care physicians to the cognitive functioning of older patients, especially patients who experience adverse events that may be indicators of dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants553
- Effect size29.7%; 13.7%; 34.8%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following 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 | 1 / 5 | 2004 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 553 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15215282) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “primary-care”
6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “primary-care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.