Home › Research › Disparities
Racial and Ethnic Differences in Subjective Cognitive Decline - United States, 2015-2020
Karen G Wooten, Lisa C McGuire, Benjamin S Olivari, Eva M J Jackson, Janet B Croft. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 2023-03-10
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD), the self-reported experience of worsening or more frequent memory loss or confusion, might be a symptom of early-stage dementia or future serious cognitive decline such as Alzheimer disease* or a related dementia (ADRD) (1). Established modifiable risk factors for ADRD include high blood pressure, inadequate physical activity, obesity, diabetes, depression, current cigarette smoking, and hearing loss (2). An estimated 6.5 million persons aged ≥65 years in the United States live with Alzheimer disease, the most common dementia (1). This number is projected to double by 2060, with the largest increase among non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black), and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) adults (1,3). Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), CDC assessed racial and ethnic, select demographic, and geographical differences in SCD prevalence, and prevalence of health care professional conversations among those reporting SCD. The age-adjusted prevalence of SCD during 2015-2020 was 9.6% among adults aged ≥45 years (5.0% of Asian or Pacific Islander [A/PI] adults, 9.3% of non-Hispanic White [White] adults, 10.1% of Black adults, 11.4% of Hispanic adults, and 16.7% of non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native [AI/AN] adults). College education was associated with a lower prevalence of SCD among all racial and ethnic groups. Only 47.3% of adults with SCD reported that they had discussed confusion or memory loss with a health care professional. Discussing changes in cognition with a physician can allow for the identification of potentially treatable conditions, early detection of dementia, promotion of dementia risk reduction behaviors, and establishing a treatment or care plan to help adults remain healthy and independent for as long as possible.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wooten, K. G., McGuire, L. C., Olivari, B. S., Jackson, E. M. J., & Croft, J. B. (2023). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Subjective Cognitive Decline - United States, 2015-2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7210a1
Vancouver
Wooten KG, McGuire LC, Olivari BS, Jackson EMJ, Croft JB. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Subjective Cognitive Decline - United States, 2015-2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2023. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7210a1. PMID: 36893045.
BibTeX
@article{wooten2023-36893045,
author = {Wooten, Karen G and McGuire, Lisa C and Olivari, Benjamin S and Jackson, Eva M J and Croft, Janet B},
title = {{Racial and Ethnic Differences in Subjective Cognitive Decline - United States, 2015-2020}},
journal = {MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.15585/mmwr.mm7210a1},
pmid = {36893045},
url = {https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7210a1}
}
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
- College education was associated with a lower prevalence of SCD among all racial and ethnic groups.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Effect size9.6%; 5.0%; 9.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 22 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 13 of the 60 points we could judge it on, which is 22 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 3 / 10 | Report — not peer-reviewed. Named source is an organisational report, not a journal article. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 36893045) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 13 / 60 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 60 points we could judge it on is 22 out of 100. |
| Total | 22 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 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.