Home › Research › Disparities
Racial/Ethnic and Nativity Differences in Cognitive Life Expectancies Among Older Adults in the United States
Garcia MA, Downer B, Chiu CT, Saenz JL, Rote S, Wong R.. The Gerontologist, 2019-03-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background and objectives To document racial/ethnic and nativity differences by gender in cognitive life expectancies among older adults in the United States. Research design and methods Sullivan-based life tables were used to estimate cognitively normal, cognitively impaired/no dementia (CIND), and dementia life expectancies by gender for White, Black, U.S.-born Hispanic, and foreign-born Hispanic adults 50 years and older in the Health and Retirement Study. Results Among women, the number of years spent living with dementia for Whites, Blacks, U.S.-born Hispanics, and foreign-born Hispanics was 1.6, 3.9, 4.7, and 6.0 years, respectively. For men, Whites lived 1.1 years with dementia compared to 3.1 years for Blacks, 3.0 years for U.S.-born Hispanics and 3.2 years for foreign-born Hispanics. Similar patterns were observed for race/ethnic and nativity differences in CIND life expectancies. Blacks and Hispanics spend a larger fraction of their remaining years with CIND and dementia relative to Whites, regardless of gender. Foreign-born Hispanic men and women and Black men are particularly disadvantaged in the proportion of years spent after age 50 with CIND and/or dementia. Discussion and implications Disparities in cognitive life expectancies indicate that intervention strategies should target the specific needs of minority and immigrant older adults with dementia. Given that education is a strong predictor of cognitive health, improving access to the social and economic resources that delay dementia onset is key to improving the well-being of diverse older adults.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Garcia, M. A., Downer, B., Chiu, C. T., Saenz, J. L., Rote, S., & Wong, R. (2019). Racial/Ethnic and Nativity Differences in Cognitive Life Expectancies Among Older Adults in the United States. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx142
Vancouver
Garcia MA, Downer B, Chiu CT, Saenz JL, Rote S, Wong R. Racial/Ethnic and Nativity Differences in Cognitive Life Expectancies Among Older Adults in the United States. The Gerontologist. 2019. doi:10.1093/geront/gnx142. PMID: 28958071.
BibTeX
@article{garcia2019-28958071,
author = {Garcia, M. A. and Downer, B. and Chiu, C. T. and Saenz, J. L. and Rote, S. and Wong, R.},
title = {{Racial/Ethnic and Nativity Differences in Cognitive Life Expectancies Among Older Adults in the United States}},
journal = {The Gerontologist},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1093/geront/gnx142},
pmid = {28958071},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx142}
}
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 Among women, the number of years spent living with dementia for Whites, Blacks, U.S.-born Hispanics, and foreign-born Hispanics was 1.6, 3.9, 4.7, and 6.0 years, respectively.
- For men, Whites lived 1.1 years with dementia compared to 3.1 years for Blacks, 3.0 years for U.S.-born Hispanics and 3.2 years for foreign-born Hispanics.
- Discussion and implications Disparities in cognitive life expectancies indicate that intervention strategies should target the specific needs of minority and immigrant older adults with dementia.
Why it matters
This study estimated years of life spent with dementia among older US adults and found black, US-born Hispanic and foreign-born Hispanic people spent more years with dementia than white people. Foreign-born Hispanic men and women and black men were particularly disadvantaged in the proportion of years after age 50 spent with cognitive impairment or dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Gerontologist) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 (OpenAlex dates this DOI to 2017, the record says 2019; OpenAlex values not used) — 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 | 2 / 6 | Cited by 5 other studies in this library |
| 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 28958071) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 64 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 15.
Later studies that cite this one
5 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.