Home › Research › Disparities
Improving identification of cognitive impairment in primary care
Borson S, Scanlan JM, Watanabe J, Tu SP, Lessig M.. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2006-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To compare the relative level and predictors of accuracy of a brief cognitive screen, the Mini-Cog, with spontaneous detection of cognitive impairment by subjects' primary care physicians. Participants A heterogeneous community sample (n=371) of predominantly ethnic minority elderly assessed by standardized research protocol, 231 of whom met criteria for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Results The Mini-Cog detected cognitively impaired subjects much more effectively than did subject's own physicians (p Conclusion This study demonstrates that recognition of cognitive impairment by primary care physicians is adversely influenced by important patient and disease characteristics. Results also show that use of the Mini-Cog would improve recognition of cognitive impairment in primary care, particularly in milder stages and in older adults subject to disparities in health care quality due to sociodemographic factors.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Borson, S., Scanlan, J. M., Watanabe, J., Tu, S. P., & Lessig, M. (2006). Improving identification of cognitive impairment in primary care. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1470
Vancouver
Borson S, Scanlan JM, Watanabe J, Tu SP, Lessig M. Improving identification of cognitive impairment in primary care. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2006. doi:10.1002/gps.1470. PMID: 16534774.
BibTeX
@article{borson2006-16534774,
author = {Borson, S. and Scanlan, J. M. and Watanabe, J. and Tu, S. P. and Lessig, M.},
title = {{Improving identification of cognitive impairment in primary care}},
journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
year = {2006},
doi = {10.1002/gps.1470},
pmid = {16534774},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1470}
}
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 The Mini-Cog detected cognitively impaired subjects much more effectively than did subject's own physicians (p Conclusion This study demonstrates that recognition of cognitive impairment by primary care physicians is adversely influenced by important patient and disease characteristics.
- Results also show that use of the Mini-Cog would improve recognition of cognitive impairment in primary care, particularly in milder stages and in older adults subject to disparities in health care quality due to sociodemographic factors.
Why it matters
This study found that a brief cognitive screen, the Mini-Cog, detected cognitive impairment much more effectively than the participants' own primary care physicians did. This is about improving recognition of cognitive impairment in primary care, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Participants371
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: journal h-index 190 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2006 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 371 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 5 / 7 | Cited 258 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 11.7 citations a year over 22 year(s) since 2006 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 3 / 6 | Cited by 14 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 38 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Mary C. Lessig: h-index 14 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16534774) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 17.
Later studies that cite this one
14 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “examination”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.