Examine Race/Ethnicity Disparities in Perception, Intention, and Screening of Dementia in a Community Setting: Scoping Review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Delayed detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementia (ADRD) can lead to suboptimal care and socioeconomic burdens on individuals, families, and communities. Our objective is to investigate dementia screening behavior focusing on minority older populations and assess whether there are ethnic differences in ADRD screening behavior. Methods: The scoping review method was utilized to examine ADRD screening behavior and contributing factors for missed and delayed screening/diagnosis focusing on race/ethnicity. Results: 2288 papers were identified, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. We identified six dimensions of ADRD screening behavior: Noticing Symptoms, Recognizing a problem, Accepting Screen, Intending Screen, Action, and Integrating with time. Final findings were organized into study race/ethnicity, theoretical background, the methods of quantitative and qualitative studies, description and measures of ADRD screening behavior, and racial/ethnic differences in ADRD screening behavior. Conclusions: A trend in ethnic disparities in screening for ADRD was observed. Our findings point to the fact that there is a scarcity of studies focusing on describing ethnic-specific ADRD screening behavior as well as a lack of those examining the impact of ethnicity on ADRD screening behavior, especially studies where Asian Americans are almost invisible.
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?
Diagnosis delays are greater among individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups.
“with greater delays among individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups.”
From 2024 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures (2024) · cites this paper as [710]
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 54 · Cited by 33
- Authors
- Lee, S., Kim, D., & Lee, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Haeok
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2022-07-21
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 8865
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9321249
- OpenAlex
- W4286203279
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R56AG069130)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Keywords
- dementia screening, Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, racial and ethnic disparities, minority older adults, delayed diagnosis, symptom recognition, screening intention, Asian Americans, community-based screening
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Ethnicity, Humans, Mass Screening, Perception, Intention
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