4.7 Article

Rural-urban differences in diagnostic incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

Journal

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
Volume 17, Issue 7, Pages 1213-1230

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12285

Keywords

ADRD; diagnostic incidence; diagnostic prevalence; rural‐ urban disparity

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [R03 AG054687-01, P01AG027296]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rural areas have higher risk-adjusted ADRD diagnostic incidence rates compared to metropolitan areas, despite lower prevalence rates. Metropolitan residents diagnosed with ADRD in 2008 had longer survival compared to rural and micropolitan residents, indicating potential underdiagnosis or late diagnosis in rural communities. Further research is needed to develop strategies to address this disparity.
Introduction Understanding rural-urban variation in the diagnostic incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) will inform policies to improve timely diagnosis and access to supportive services for older adults in rural communities. Methods Using 2008 to 2015 national claims data for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (roughly 170 million person-years), we computed unadjusted and adjusted diagnostic incidence and prevalence estimates for ADRD in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties, and examined differences in survival rates. Results Risk-adjusted ADRD diagnostic incidence was higher in rural versus metropolitan counties despite lower prevalence. Among beneficiaries diagnosed with ADRD in 2008, metropolitan county residents experienced longer survival compared to residents in rural and micropolitan counties. Discussion These data suggest that older adults in rural communities may be underdiagnosed with ADRD, and/or diagnosed at later stages of dementia. Further work is needed to develop strategies to reduce this disparity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available