4.4 Article

Role of Neighborhood Physical Disorder and Social Cohesion on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Dementia Risk

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGING AND HEALTH
Volume 34, Issue 9-10, Pages 1178-1187

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/08982643221101352

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; cognitive impairment; environment; disparities; social determinants

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [U01AG32947]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that higher levels of baseline and follow-up neighborhood physical disorder significantly increased dementia risk, while Hispanic older adults in neighborhoods with higher physical disorder had significantly decreased dementia risk. There were no significant associations found for social cohesion.
Objectives: To analyze how neighborhood physical disorder and social cohesion are associated with racial and ethnic disparities in dementia risk. Methods: Nine years of data (2011-2019) were retrieved from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative U.S. older adult (age 65+) sample. Cox regression analyzed time to dementia diagnosis using composite scores for neighborhood physical disorder and social cohesion. Results: Higher baseline neighborhood physical disorder (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]=1.11, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]=1.01-1.23) and increased disorder at follow-up (aHR=1.10, 95% CI=1.01-1.19) significantly increased dementia risk. Hispanic older adults with higher physical disorder at baseline (aHR=0.62, 95% CI=0.49-0.79) and follow-up (aHR=0.81, 95% CI=0.67-0.98) had a significantly decreased dementia risk. There were no significant associations for social cohesion. Discussion: Physical but not social neighborhood characteristics are associated with dementia risk. Future research is needed to understand protective mechanisms for dementia among Hispanic older adults in neighborhoods with high physical disorder.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available