ArticleJournal of the American Medical Directors Association2026
Disparities in the Setting of Initial Dementia Diagnosis: Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and Primary Care Use.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePrior studies noted differences in care setting for initial diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), but racial and ethnic differences in first diagnosis setting remains unclear. This study investigates the differences in ADRD diagnosis by race and ethnicity and examines the association of these differences with primary care use.
designWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2022 Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims and enrollment files. SETTING AND
participantsWe analyzed individuals aged 65 years or older newly diagnosed with ADRD between July 1 and December 31, 2022. Our sample included 246,471 individuals.
methodsThe main exposures of interest were race and ethnicity and recent primary care use (≥1 visit to a primary care provider in the 6 months prior to diagnosis). The primary outcome was setting of first ADRD diagnosis, categorized as community (eg, outpatient clinic, primary care office, specialist office), acute (inpatient or emergency department), or skilled nursing facilities or nursing homes (SNFs/NHs). We applied adjusted multinomial logistic regression models and quantified differences in probabilities with marginal effects.
resultsAmong the 246,471 beneficiaries with newly diagnosed ADRD, 50.4% were diagnosed in the community, 40.4% in acute settings, and 9.2% in SNFs/NHs. In the absence of primary care use, Black individuals were 2.7 percentage points (pp) less likely than White individuals to be diagnosed in the community. The opposite trends were seen for Hispanic (+4.6 pp) and Asian (+15.8 pp) individuals. With recent primary care use, these differences narrowed (+14.3 pp) for Asian, widened (+8.0 pp) for Hispanic, and were no longer observed (+1.2, P > .05) for Black individuals. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Significant racial and ethnic differences existed in the settings in which ADRD diagnoses are made. Primary care engagement increased community-based diagnoses and reduced Black-White disparities, underscoring its role in promoting earlier ADRD detection.
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.