4.6 Review

Dementia in Latin America: Epidemiological Evidence and Implications for Public Policy

期刊

FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00221

关键词

Latin America; dementia; epidemiology; public policy; Alzheimer; dementia plan; caregiver burden; cost of dementia

资金

  1. Comision Nacional de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica [(CONICYT)/FONDECYT/11404223, CONICYT/FONDAP/15150012]
  2. Associative Research Program of CONICYT under Basal Funds Grant for Centers of Excellence [FB 0003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population aging is among the most important global transformations. Today, 12% of the world population is of age 60 and over and by the middle of this century this segment will represent 21.5%. The increase in population of those aged 80 and over, also referred to as the oldest old or the very elderly, will be even more pronounced, going from 1.7% of the population to 4.5% within the same period. Compared to European and North American countries, Latin America (LA) is experiencing this unprecedented demographic change at a significantly faster rate. Due to demographic and health transitions, the number of people with dementia will rise from 7.8 million in 2013 to over 27 million by 2050. Nowadays, the global prevalence of dementia in LA has reached 7.1%, with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) being the most frequent type. This level is similar to those found in developed countries; however, the dementia rate is twice as high as that of the 65-69 years age group in developed countries. In addition, the prevalence and incidence of dementia is higher among illiterate people. Mortality rates due to dementia have risen considerably. The burden and costs of the disease are high and must be covered by patients' families. The prevention of dementia and the development of long-term care policies and plans for people with dementia in LA, which take into account regional differences and similarities, should be urgent priorities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据