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.

38/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Introduction. This article describes the Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report, which includes 125 indicators reported at the county and state level. Methods. Data sources include the American Community Survey from the U.S. Census, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, and other sources. Small-area estimation techniques are used to calculate age- and gender-adjusted county rates. Data visualizations illustrate health disparities. Results. Mississippi is home to 663,581 people age 60 or older – 22% of the state’s total population. Approximately 12.9% of Medicare beneficiaries in Mississippi have Alzheimer’s disease or a related dementia (range 10.5%-17.3%). Discussion. The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report (see healthyagingdatareports.org) has helped policymakers, service providers, and advocates better understand the status of healthy aging in Mississippi. The tools provided by the report have given stakeholders a way to target their efforts more deliberately and efficiently, and empowered them to make the case that supporting age-friendly social and economic systems is beneficial for residents of all ages. Our hope is that other states in the Deep South may soon join the age-friendly movement to create communities that support the optimal health of everyone – young and old alike.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

The record lists 663,581 participants. This report describes county- and state-level indicators of healthy aging in Mississippi, where about 12.9% of Medicare beneficiaries have Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia. Reported effect size: 12.9%; 10.5%; 17.3%.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Dugan, E., Jansen, T., Lee, C. M., Silverstein, N. M., & Su, Y. (2024). The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report: Tools to Advance Health Equity. Journal of Public Health in the Deep South. https://doi.org/10.55533/2996-6833.1089

Vancouver

Dugan E, Jansen T, Lee CM, Silverstein NM, Su Y. The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report: Tools to Advance Health Equity. Journal of Public Health in the Deep South. 2024. doi:10.55533/2996-6833.1089.

BibTeX

@article{dugan2024-298dc604,
  author  = {Dugan, Elizabeth and Jansen, Taylor and Lee, Chae Man and Silverstein, Nina M. and Su, Yan‐Jhu},
  title   = {{The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report: Tools to Advance Health Equity}},
  journal = {Journal of Public Health in the Deep South},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.55533/2996-6833.1089},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.55533/2996-6833.1089}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 663,581 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “12.9%; 10.5%; 17.3%”. 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

Mississippi is home to 663,581 people age 60 or older – 22% of the state’s total population.
Approximately 12.9% of Medicare beneficiaries in Mississippi have Alzheimer’s disease or a related dementia (range 10.5%-17.3%).
The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report (see healthyagingdatareports.org) has helped policymakers, service providers, and advocates better understand the status of healthy aging in Mississippi.
The tools provided by the report have given stakeholders a way to target their efforts more deliberately and efficiently, and empowered them to make the case that supporting age-friendly social and economic systems is beneficial for residents of all ages.
Our hope is that other states in the Deep South may soon join the age-friendly movement to create communities that support the optimal health of everyone – young and old alike.

Why it matters

This report describes county- and state-level indicators of healthy aging in Mississippi, where about 12.9% of Medicare beneficiaries have Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia. The report is intended to help policymakers and providers target efforts and support age-friendly systems.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Participants663,581
Effect size12.9%; 10.5%; 17.3%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 38/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Public Health in the Deep South)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Journal of Public Health in the Deep South: journal h-index 3 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	4 / 4	663,581 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	1 / 7	Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.2 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024
Impact for its field and year	1 / 6	Cited 0.5× 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	0 / 4	Last-listed author Yan‐Jhu Su: h-index 4 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	University of Connecticut: institution h-index 736 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	38 / 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).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

Also in Risk factors

356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →