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 53 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Due to rapid population aging, the number of Chileans with dementia is estimated to triple by 2050. Measurement of multiple cognitive domains in population-based surveys that facilitate studies of associations between earlier experiences and cognition among older populations are rare. The purpose of this paper is to describe the survey protocol (Chile-Cog) for assessment of cognitive function in a sample of Chileans ages 60 and above. Chile’s distinctively high life expectancy and educational attainment relative to other Latin American countries, and its rapid transition from a middle- to a high-income economy, make it a valuable setting for studying life-course influences on cognitive health at older ages. The sample for the Chile-Cog was drawn from the longitudinal Chilean Social Protection Survey (SPS) in 2019 and it is nationally representative of individuals aged 60 and above. The survey protocol consists of in-person interviews to assess multiple cognitive domains, including orientation, immediate and delayed memory, attention, language, visuospatial ability, and executive function. In addition, interviews were conducted with individuals knowledgeable about the respondents’ health and daily activities. A sample of 2,033 respondents aged 60 and above in 2019 was interviewed, representing a 73% response rate. The informant sample included 1,778 participants. Most missing information in the cognitive evaluations resulted from respondents’ hearing, visual, and other physical limitations and/or inability to read or write, refusal, or not knowing the answer. Associations between cognitive function and age, sex, and education are similar to findings of the other studies using the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP). Chile-Cog is a significant advancement in assessing cognitive functioning among older Chileans. The linkage to earlier waves of the SPS provides a wealth of individual-level longitudinal data that will improve understanding of life course determinants of cognitive health among older Chileans, and harmonization with other studies will facilitate cross-national comparisons of cognitive function.

Key findings

Why it matters

This paper describes a survey protocol for measuring cognitive function in older Chileans, not a treatment or cure. It provides a resource for studying life-course influences on cognitive health in this population.

Study details

How this study scored 53/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 51 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.51 of the 96 points we could judge = 53 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 51 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC Public Health)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 BMC Public Health: journal h-index 289 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,778 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 1 / 7 Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 4.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Jere Behrman holds only 7 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 Johns Hopkins University: institution h-index 2,306 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 51 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 51 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Elo, I. T., Mani, S. S., Delaporte, M., Bravo, D., & Behrman, J. (2026). The Chilean harmonized cognitive assessment protocol (Chile-Cog): study design. BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-28784-1

Vancouver

Elo IT, Mani SS, Delaporte M, Bravo D, Behrman J. The Chilean harmonized cognitive assessment protocol (Chile-Cog): study design. BMC Public Health. 2026. doi:10.1186/s12889-026-28784-1.

BibTeX

@article{elo2026-e026a1f9,
  author  = {Elo, Irma T. and Mani, Sneha Sarah and Delaporte, Magdalena and Bravo, David and Behrman, Jere},
  title   = {{The Chilean harmonized cognitive assessment protocol (Chile-Cog): study design}},
  journal = {BMC Public Health},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12889-026-28784-1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-28784-1}
}

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →