Differences in survival and mortality in minority ethnic groups with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Objectives Although there are disparities in both risk of developing dementia and accessibility of dementia services for certain minority ethnic groups in the United States and United Kingdom, disparities in survival after a dementia diagnosis are less well‐studied. Our objective was to systematically review the literature to investigate racial/ethnic differences in survival and mortality in dementia. Methods We searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health and PsycINFO from inception to November 2018 for studies comparing survival or mortality over time in at least two race/ethnicity groups. Studies from any country were included but analysed separately. We used narrative synthesis and random‐effects meta‐analysis to synthesise findings. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess quality and risk of bias in individual studies. Results We identified 22 articles, most from the United States (n = 17), as well as the United Kingdom (n = 3) and the Netherlands (n = 1). In a meta‐analysis of US studies, hazard of mortality was lower in Black/African American groups (Pooled Hazard Ratio = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.82–0.91, I2 = 17%, from four studies) and Hispanic/Latino groups (Pooled HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.50–0.84, I2 = 86%, from four studies) versus comparison groups. However, study quality was mixed, and in particular, quality of reporting of race/ethnicity was inconsistent. Conclusion Literature indicates that Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino groups may experience lower mortality in dementia versus comparison groups in the United States, but further research, using clearer and more and consistent reporting of race/ethnicity, is necessary to understand what drives these patterns and their implications for policy and practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing research examines the impact of few social, demographic or geographic factors in mortality risk among people living with dementia.
“Existing research examines the impact of few social, demographic or geographic factors in mortality risk among PLWD [1,2,40].”
From The Impact of demographic, socio-economic and geographic factors on mortality risk among people living with dementia in England (2002–2016) (2021) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 85 · Cited by 15
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Kramarow EA, Tejada-Vera B. Dementia mortality in the United States, 2000-2017. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;68(2):1-29.
- Schwarzer G. meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007; 7(3):40-45.
- Higgins JP, Green S. Recommendations on testing for funnel plot asymmetry. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of in- terventions; 4: John Wiley & Sons. 2011.
- Sachs GA, Tu W, Ravan C, Holtz L, Stump TE, Callahan CM. Cogni- tive impairment as an independent predictor of excess mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;1:S147.
- Ornstein KA, Zhu CW, Bollens-Lund E, et al. Medicare expenditures and healthcare utilization in a multi-ethnic community-based pop- ulation with dementia from incidence to death. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2018;32(4):320-325.
- Authors
- Co, M., Couch, E., Gao, Q., Martinez, A., Das‐Munshi, J., & Prina, M.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Co, Melissa
- Venue
- International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-07-29
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1640-1663
- ISSN
- 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1166
- OpenAlex
- W3177303971
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 85
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Keywords
- dementia, racial and ethnic disparities, mortality, African American population, Hispanic/Latino populations, ethnic minorities, health disparities
- MeSH terms
- Black or African American, Dementia, Ethnicity, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Minority Groups, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review