Search

Objectives: More people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries, but best-practice care recommendations are often based on studies from high-income countries. We aimed to map the available evidence on dementia interventions in LMICs., Methods: We systematically mapped available evidence on interventions that aimed to improve the lives of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs (registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018106206). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2018. We searched 11 electronic academic and grey literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit) and examined the number and characteristics of RCTs according to intervention type. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias., Results: We included 340 RCTs with 29,882 (median, 68) participants, published 2008-2018. Over two-thirds of the studies were conducted in China (n = 237, 69.7%). Ten LMICs accounted for 95.9% of included RCTs. The largest category of interventions was Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 149, 43.8%), followed by Western medicine pharmaceuticals (n = 109, 32.1%), supplements (n = 43, 12.6%), and structured therapeutic psychosocial interventions (n = 37, 10.9%). Overall risk of bias was judged to be high for 201 RCTs (59.1%), moderate for 136 (40.0%), and low for 3 (0.9%)., Conclusions: Evidence-generation on interventions for people with dementia or MCI and/or their carers in LMICs is concentrated in just a few countries, with no RCTs reported in the vast majority of LMICs. The body of evidence is skewed towards selected interventions and overall subject to high risk of bias. There is a need for a more coordinated approach to robust evidence-generation for LMICs., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To compare total out-of-pocket expenses for physician visits and medications among older adults living with diabetes in Mexico from urban, semi-urban, and rural areas., Methods: The sample included 2,398 Mexicans aged 65 years and older with self-reported diabetes from the 2018 Mexican Health and Aging Study. Out-of-pocket expenses for physician visits and medications were regressed on locality, controlling for several factors., Results: The profile of those with higher out-of-pocket medication expenditures included rural localities, higher education, unmarried, depressive symptoms, participation in Seguro Popular, and lacking insurance. In the multivariate analysis, rural older adults with diabetes paid a higher amount in medication expenditures compared with other localities., Conclusion: Differences in locality are closely tied to the effective implementation of Seguro Popular. Although this program has improved access to care, participants have higher out-of-pocket expenditures for medications than those on employer-based plans across all localities. Among all groups, the uninsured bare the highest burden of expenditures, highlighting a continued need to address health inequities for the most underserved populations., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Rojas Alvarez, Vazquez, Lopez-Ortega and Angel.)

Introduction: There are more people living with dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries. Evidence-based interventions to improve the lives of people living with dementia and their carers are needed, but a systematic mapping of methodologically robust studies in LMICs and synthesis of the effectiveness of dementia interventions in these settings is missing., Methods and Analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted to answer the question: Which dementia interventions were shown to be effective in LMICs and how do they compare to each other? Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) will be complemented by hand searching of reference lists and local knowledge of existing studies from an international network of researchers in dementia from LMICs. Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they were published between 2008 and 2018, conducted in LMICs and evaluated the effectiveness of a dementia intervention using a study design that supports causal inference of the treatment effect. We will include both randomised and non-randomised studies due to an anticipated low number of well-conducted randomised trials in LMICs and potentially greater external validity of non-randomised studies conducted in routine care settings. In addition to narrative synthesis of the interventions, feasibility of pairwise and network meta-analyses will be explored to obtain pooled effects of relative treatment effects., Ethics and Dissemination: Secondary analysis of published studies, therefore no ethics approval required. Planned dissemination channels include a peer-reviewed publication as well as a website, DVD and evidence summaries., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018106206., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)