Background: Latin America, China and India are experiencing unprecedentedly rapid demographic ageing with an increasing number of people with dementia. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group's title refers to the 66% of people with dementia that live in developing countries and the less than one tenth of population-based research carried out in those settings. This paper describes the protocols for the 10/66 population-based and intervention studies that aim to redress this imbalance.

SummaryBackgroundStudies have suggested that the prevalence of dementia is lower in developing than in developed regions. We investigated the prevalence and severity of dementia in sites in low-income and middle-income countries according to two definitions of dementia diagnosis.MethodsWe undertook one-phase cross-sectional surveys of all residents aged 65 years and older (n=14 960) in 11 sites in seven low-income and middle-income countries (China, India, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Mexico, and Peru). Dementia diagnosis was made according to the culturally and educationally sensitive 10/66 dementia diagnostic algorithm, which had been prevalidated in 25 Latin American, Asian, and African centres; and by computerised application of the dementia criterion from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV). We also compared prevalence of DSM-IV dementia in each of the study sites with that from estimates in European studies.FindingsThe prevalence of DSM-IV dementia varied widely, from 0·3% (95% CI 0·1–0·5) in rural India to 6·3% (5·0–7·7) in Cuba. After standardisation for age and sex, DSM-IV prevalence in urban Latin American sites was four-fifths of that in Europe (standardised morbidity ratio 80 [95% CI 70–91]), but in China the prevalence was only half (56 [32–91] in rural China), and in India and rural Latin America a quarter or less of the European prevalence (18 [5–34] in rural India). 10/66 dementia prevalence was higher than that of DSM-IV dementia, and more consistent across sites, varying between 5·6% (95% CI 4·2–7·0) in rural China and 11·7% (10·3–13·1) in the Dominican Republic. The validity of the 847 of 1345 cases of 10/66 dementia not confirmed by DSM-IV was supported by high levels of associated disability (mean WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II score 33·7 [SD 28·6]).InterpretationAs compared with the 10/66 dementia algorithm, the DSM-IV dementia criterion might underestimate dementia prevalence, especially in regions with low awareness of this emerging public-health problem.FundingWellcome Trust (UK); WHO; the US Alzheimer's Association; and Fondo Nacional De Ciencia Y Tecnologia, Consejo De Desarrollo Cientifico Y Humanistico, and Universidad Central De Venezuela (Venezuela).

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of home visiting programmes that offer health promotion and preventive care to older people. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies of home visiting. Participants Older people living at home, including frail older people at risk of adverse outcomes. Outcome measures Mortality, admission to hospital, admission to institutional care, functional status, health status. Results Home visiting was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. The pooled odds ratio for eight studies that assessed mortality in members of the general elderly population was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.89). Five studies of home visiting to frail older people who were at risk of adverse outcomes also showed a significant reduction in mortality (0.72; 0.54 to 0.97). Home visiting was associated with a significant reduction in admissions to long term care in members of the general elderly population (0.65; 0.46 to 0.91). For three studies of home visiting to frail, "at risk" older people, the pooled odds ratio was 0.55 (0.35 to 0.88). Meta-analysis of six studies of home visiting to members of the general elderly population showed no significant reduction in admissions to hospital (odds ratio 0.95; 0.80 to 1.09). Three studies showed no significant effect on health (standardised effect size 0.06; -0.07 to 0.18). Four studies showed no effect on activities of daily living (0.05; -0.07 to 0.17). Conclusion Home visits to older people can reduce mortality and admission to long term institutional care.

Background

No abstract