Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

INTRODUCTION: With the rapid expansion of the aging population, the burden of Alzheimer's disease related dementias (ADRD) is anticipated to increase in racialized and minoritized groups who are at disproportionately higher risk. To date, research emphasis has been on further characterizing the existence of racial disparities in ADRD through comparisons to groups racialized as White that are assumed to be normative. Much of the literature on this comparison insinuates that racialized and minoritized groups experience poorer outcomes due to genetics, culture, and/or health behaviors. METHODS: This perspective shines a light on a category of ADRD research that employs ahistorical methodological approaches to describe racial disparities in ADRD that puts us on a merry-go-round of research with no benefits to society. METHODS: This commentary provides historical context for the use of race in ADRD research and justification for the study of structural racism. The commentary concludes with recommendations to guide future research.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 25 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.25 of the 56 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a leading specialty 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, 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 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
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 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 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 (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 37394968)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 25 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Adkins-Jackson, P. B., Kraal, A. Z., Hill-Jarrett, T. G., George, K. M., Deters, K. D., Besser, L. M., et al. (2023). Riding the merry-go-round of racial disparities in ADRD research. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13359

Vancouver

Adkins-Jackson PB, Kraal AZ, Hill-Jarrett TG, George KM, Deters KD, Besser LM, et al. Riding the merry-go-round of racial disparities in ADRD research. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2023. doi:10.1002/alz.13359. PMID: 37394968.

BibTeX

@article{adkinsjackson2023-37394968,
  author  = {Adkins-Jackson, Paris B and Kraal, A Zarina and Hill-Jarrett, Tanisha G and George, Kristen M and Deters, Kacie D and Besser, Lilah M and Avila-Rieger, Justina F and Turney, Indira and others},
  title   = {{Riding the merry-go-round of racial disparities in ADRD research}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.13359},
  pmid    = {37394968},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13359}
}

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.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →