Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34174814›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2021

Ageing and dementia: age-period-cohort effects of policy intervention in England, 2006-2016.

Kamila Kolpashnikova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kamila KolpashnikovaUniversity of Oxford, 42-43 Park End St, OX1 1JD, Oxford, UK. kamila.kolpashnikova@sociology.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 892101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia is one of the most critical challenges of our time. According to the Dementia Statistics Hub, only about 66 % of all UK residents with dementia were diagnosed in 2017-2018. Yet, there are reservations about the early diagnosis of dementia-related diseases. As a result, the UK National Screening Committee does not recommend systematic population screening of dementia, although case-finding strategies are still applied for high-risk groups.

methodsThis study added additional evidence of the effectiveness of the National Dementia Strategy and increased numbers of diagnosis of dementia on the younger cohorts of the older people, using the intrinsic estimator age-period-cohort (APC) models and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing data.

resultsAge effects show that diagnosis increases in volume only among those aged 75 and above, suggesting that many of those aged below 75 might not be diagnosed in time. Period effects show that although there was an initial increase due to the new policy implementation, the trend stalled in later years, indicating that the increase might not have been even across the period when controlled for age and cohort. The study also shows that cohort effects indicate lower prevalence in younger cohorts controlled for age and period effects.

conclusionsAlthough more research in diverse contexts is warranted, this study cautions against the abandonment of timely diagnosis, increased screening and case-finding, and shows some effectiveness of prevention strategies on the national level.

Indexed as

DementiaAgedAgingCohort EffectEnglandHumansLongitudinal StudiesPolicydementiaDementia ChallengeNational Dementia Policypolicy evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34174814
PMCPMC8235903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.