ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Psychometric Evidence of Instruments for Assessing Mental Health in Older Adults from Latin America and the Caribbean: A Scoping Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychometric Evidence of Instruments for Assessing Mental Health in Older Adults from Latin America and the Caribbean: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesScreening instruments are relevant for assessing the mental health of older adults, favoring clinical practice and research. However, there is a need for instruments with sufficient evidence of validity for use in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), where they are growing. This scoping review aims to evaluate the existing evidence regarding the psychometric properties of mental health measurement instruments used with older adults from LAC.
methodsEight databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Medline, Embase, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched to extract relevant articles about instruments to measure mental health outcomes in older adults in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. After the first screening and duplicate removal, 6307 were retrieved.
resultsThe full-text screening identified 312 articles for inclusion in the review. Most of the articles were from Brazil (49.04%). One hundred eighty instruments (52.79%) assessed cognition, mainly using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), followed by 11.14% for depression, most commonly with the Yesavage Depression Scale (GDS). The assessment of validity was predominantly based on two criteria (34%), and 56% of the evidence was published in the last 10 years. To improve usability, we have provided a practical guide to help LAC clinicians and researchers identify and select robustly validated and contextually appropriate assessment instruments.
conclusionsThere is still little evidence of the validity of instruments that measure other aspects of mental health beyond cognitive functioning. There seems to be no unified set of criteria in Latin America for determining whether an instrument has sufficient valid evidence. More work is needed on cross-cultural validity evidence within the region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.