This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

66/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

Included in the analysis were 48,330 participants across 46 ADRCs (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [10.5] years; 20,767 female [57%]; 4,138 Hispanic [8.6%]; 1,392 non-Hispanic Asian [2.9%]; 6,766 non-Hispanic Black [14%] individuals; and 676 individuals [1.4%] of other races. Non-Hispanic Black and Asian participants had lower odds of being referred by a professional contact compared to non-Hispanic White participants (Black: adjusted OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005; Asian: adjusted OR = 0.65, 95% CI, p = 0.004). In participants who had completed an MRI, there was no significant difference in referral source across ethnic and racial groups. Further studies are needed to better understand the systemic and structural factors that contribute to differences in referral sources and disparities in recruitment of URG into ADRD studies.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Chan, C. K., Lane, K. A., Gao, S., Adeoye-Olatunde, O. A., Biber, S., Glover, C. M., et al. (2024). Referral Sources Across Racial and Ethnic Groups at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240485

Vancouver

Chan CK, Lane KA, Gao S, Adeoye-Olatunde OA, Biber S, Glover CM, et al. Referral Sources Across Racial and Ethnic Groups at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2024. doi:10.3233/jad-240485. PMID: 39365322.

BibTeX

@article{chan2024-39365322,
  author  = {Chan, Carol K and Lane, Kathleen A and Gao, Sujuan and Adeoye-Olatunde, Omolola A and Biber, Sarah and Glover, Crystal M and Johnson, David K and Risacher, Shannon L and others},
  title   = {{Referral Sources Across Racial and Ethnic Groups at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-240485},
  pmid    = {39365322},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240485}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record lists 48,330 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “8.6%; 2.9%; 1.4%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Included in the analysis were 48,330 participants across 46 ADRCs (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [10.5] years; 20,767 female [57%]; 4,138 Hispanic [8.6%]; 1,392 non-Hispanic Asian [2.9%]; 6,766 non-Hispanic Black [14%] individuals; and 676 individuals [1.4%] of other races.
Non-Hispanic Black and Asian participants had lower odds of being referred by a professional contact compared to non-Hispanic White participants (Black: adjusted OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005; Asian: adjusted OR = 0.65, 95% CI, p = 0.004).
In participants who had completed an MRI, there was no significant difference in referral source across ethnic and racial groups.
Further studies are needed to better understand the systemic and structural factors that contribute to differences in referral sources and disparities in recruitment of URG into ADRD studies.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants48,330
Effect size8.6%; 2.9%; 1.4%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 66/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	4 / 4	48,330 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 39365322)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	37 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total	66 / 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 in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Disparities from nearby years

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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →