Geographical variation in dementia: systematic review with meta-analysis

K.E. Walesby, S.D. Shenkin, J.K. Burton, C. Dunlop, C. Fenton, D. Gray, L.A. McGillicuddy, J.M. Starr, T. Wilkinson, G. Muniz Terrera, T.C. Russ
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.11.23299178

ABSTRACT

Background Understanding geographical variation of dementia could highlight important modifiable socio-environmental risk factors. A previous systematic review (2012) identified an increased risk of Alzheimer dementia in in rural living in High-Income Countries (HICs), with a dearth of studies in Low to Middle-Income Countries (L-MICs). We updated this review to examine geographical variations in dementia, to encompass the growing number of studies in this field.

Methods We systematically reviewed the literature for cross-sectional or longitudinal observational studies that compared dementia incidence or prevalence between two or more geographical areas including rural and urban settings.

We conducted a narrative synthesis of included papers. Where possible, we undertook meta-analysis, generating odds ratios for rural versus urban dementia prevalence and stratified the analysis by HICs and L-MICs.

Results We identified 38 relevant papers, encompassing approximately 98,502,147 people. Twenty-seven papers were included in the quantitative synthesis. Study methodologies varied widely. Dementia rates varied geographically (0.43-38.5%). Overall, rural living was associated with small increased odds of dementia (OR, 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40; P value = 0.0182). Stratification by HICs and L-MICs demonstrated further variation, with increased odds of dementia in rural areas in L-MICs but not HICs.

Conclusions There is some evidence of geographical variation of dementia. Rural living was associated with small increased odds of dementia, with stratification showing evidence in rural areas of L-MICs but not HICs. We believe this has not been reported previously. Future research must consider life course geographical exposure and addressing heterogeneity in definitions of ‘rural’ and ‘urban.’

What this study adds We confirm that rural living (compared to urban living) is associated with a small increased odds of dementia (OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.03-1.40). We demonstrate for the first time that this is driven by increased odds of dementia in rural areas in Low to Middle-Income Countries (L-MICs) rather than High Income Countries (HICs), and that the odds of dementia were higher in urban areas in large studies in HICs. Future studies need to carefully consider study setting, method of dementia ascertainment, when exposures may occur, and risk of bias, to understand the role of environment and geography in dementia risk.

INTRODUCTION

Dementia is a growing worldwide public health concern. The epidemiology of this complex syndrome is not yet fully understood.1 Age and known genetic, health, and lifestyle risk factors play an important role in dementia incidence, but together they do not fully explain dementia aetiology. Life course geographical variation might influence dementia risk or protective factors.

A systematic review in 2012 found “evidence of geographical variation in rates of dementia in affluent countries at a variety of geographical scales.”2 Furthermore, an increased risk of Alzheimer’s dementia was associated with rural living (Prevalence OR 1.50, 90% CI 1.33-1.69), with early life rural living further increasing this risk to approximately double (OR 2.22, 90%CI 1.19-4.16). However, these results were based on very few studies, and there have been several subsequent studies. We therefore updated this systematic review2 to reflect the developing body of evidence in this field. In our present systematic review, we report a comprehensive overview of the literature specifically examining the influence of rural and urban living on risk of dementia.

METHODS

Registration and reporting

We prospectively registered the protocol with PROSPERO, reference CRD42016050323 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/) and report the review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting of Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance.3,4

Information sources

We searched multiple databases on 18th-31st October 2018 for papers since the published review2 search date of 15th April 2010: search information and indicative search strategies were developed with an Information Specialist (CF), (Appendix 1).

Eligibility criteria

Eligible studies included: cross-sectional or longitudinal studies of any duration comparing primary dementia rates (prevalence or incidence) between two or more different geographical sites. Our initial search was broad then focused to rural/urban; therefore, many studies (117) were excluded as ‘wrong comparator.’

We excluded studies purely on young onset dementia (<60 years old) or mild cognitive impairment. We did not restrict to English language (Appendix 2).

Study selection and data collection

Two reviewers (from KEW, JKB, and TCR) independently screened all titles and abstracts using Covidence,5 and two then reviewed full text with conflicts resolved by discussion. Google translate was used for data extraction from papers not in English.

Two of KEW, LAM, CD, or DG extracted data using a bespoke and piloted form with discrepancies resolved by discussion and reference to the original paper.

Where articles did not report odds ratios for dementia risk in rural and urban areas,6-16 we computed these if the relevant raw data were reported or contacted authors9,17-20 : data provided by two authors.18,19 We contacted authors regarding full-text publications from abstracts identified, and overlap between studies. When both unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted odds ratios were reported, we report unadjusted odds ratio. When both DSM-IV and 10/66 method were used for dementia ascertainment, we report the 10/66 results21-23 (as this has shown greater dementia ascertainment in LICs and LMICs24,25) except when the 10/66 data were incomplete.26

Strategy for data synthesis

Where sufficient data were available, we conducted a random effects meta-analysis of odds ratios. Post-hoc we decided to explore the data by stratifying by Higher Income Countries (HICs) and Low to Middle-Income Countries (L-MICs)27 (Appendix 3), and further by study size. We recognise this classification of country income can change with time (Appendix 3). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic. Studies which could not be combined quantitatively were reported in a narrative synthesis.

Risk of bias assessment in individual studies

KEW, SDS, and TCR assessed the risk of bias using an adapted Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomized studies (RoBANS), (Appendix 4), with disagreements resolved by discussion.

RESULTS

The narrative synthesis includes 38 new papers (Table 1), 27 of which – including 33 cohorts - could be meta-analysed (Figure 1).

Figure 1:
Figure 1: PRISMA flowchart detailing selection of studies for inclusion in the review: rural/urban differences in dementia
View this table:
Table 1: Executive summary of studies meeting inclusion criteria: rural/urban differences in dementia

Geographical locations and sample sizes

Studies were predominantly in the Americas (N=11) and Western Pacific region (especially China, N=11), and also Europe (N=9) South-East Asia (N=4), Africa (N=3), and Eastern Mediterranean region (N=2) (one study covered three areas). Of the meta-analysis papers, 12 papers (13 studies) were based in HICs and 15 papers (20 studies) in L-MICs.

In the 35 papers that included a sample size, this ranged from 90 to 73,000,000 people, median 2170. Of 27 papers in the meta-analysis, study samples ranged from 300 to 21,624,228 people, median 2162.6-11,13,15,16,18,19,21,22,28-39 The definition of ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ was heterogeneous. Too few papers included information on education, deprivation, or other socio-economic factors in relation to rural or urban settings and subsequent dementia risk to include in the meta-analysis. Three papers considered childhood and adulthood rural or urban residence and risk of dementia,18,40,41 only one was included in the meta-analysis.18

Dementia diagnosis

There was considerable heterogeneity in dementia ascertainment methodologies (Appendix 5, Supplementary Table 1), mostly using surveys/interviews, clinical assessment and ICD codes. Dementia prevalence ranged from 0.43%-38.5% of the study populations in all studies, and 2.4-21% in the meta-analysis studies. Few identified dementia subtype. Most papers compared dementia against non-dementia or ‘normal’, with some including cognitive impairment/MCI in the ‘no dementia’ group, and others excluding those with MCI.

Quantitative synthesis

Overall, rural living was associated with small increased odds of dementia, compared to urban living (OR, 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40, P value = 0.0182; N=25,274,741, NDementia=3,462,039; 33 studies), Figure 2. However, stratifying by HICs and L-MICs status revealed a difference, with HICs studies showing no effect of rural vs urban (1.01, 0.88 to 1.16, P value = 0.8842; N=25,221,600, NDementia=3,458,633; 13 studies) and L-MICs suggesting increased odds of dementia in rural areas (1.33, 1.06 -1.68, P value = 0.0141; N=53,141, NDementia=3406 20 studies). There was high heterogeneity: I2 value = 99.78% (for all studies), 99.72% (for only HICs studies) and 87.64% (for only L-MICs studies).

Figure 2:
Figure 2: Forest plot showing meta-analysed rural/urban odds ratios of dementia stratified by HICs/L-MICs status and size of study: rural/urban differences in dementia1

Sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of potential overlap in L-MICs study participants9,13,22,23,26 did not significantly affect the results: rural living was still linked with a slight increase in dementia risk (1.35, 1.02-1.79, P value = 0.0354, I2 = 90.69%). Including studies from the previous systematic review also showed a slight increased risk of dementia in rural areas, (1.18, 1.01-1.37) (Appendix 6).

Further stratifying HICs and L-MICs by study size confirmed in larger L-MICs studies (N>10,000) higher odds of dementia in rural areas (or lower in urban areas; 1.56, 1.20-2.02; N=23,157, NDementia=839; 2 studies), unchanged when moderate-sized studies (N>1000) were included (1.50, 1.017-1.93; N=48,439, NDementia=2856; 14 studies). However, larger HICs studies (N>1,000,000) showed lower odds of dementia in rural areas (0.88, 0.84-0.92; N=24,900,843, NDementia=3,450,748; 3 studies). This effect was reduced when moderate-sized studies (N>10,000) were included (0.93, 0.76-1.13; N=25,195,209, NDementia=3,455,479; six studies). Studies in L-MICs were generally smaller than those in HICs.

Narrative synthesis of non-meta-analysis studies

The 11 heterogeneous papers not included in the meta-analysis, were undertaken in Europe (Switzerland, Romania, Germany and Spain),20,41-43 South-America (Brazil),44 Central America (Costa Rica),40 North America (USA)17,46 and Asia (Taiwan and China).45,47,48 between 1993 and 2012. One study investigated dementia in diabetic patients,45 the other studies investigated dementia in general. Five studies had no age restriction, 17,42,43,45,46 the others included people >55/59 years or >60/65 years.20,40,41,44,47,48, with sample size from 90 to approximately 73 million (median, 17,186).

The dementia ascertainment methodologies varied greatly: data linkage with ICD codes; 17,20,42,43,45-47 cross sectional incidence surveys; questionnaires; structured interviews and/or screening by clinical assessment.40,41,44,48

Just over half of these studies reflected the findings of the meta-analysis, with an increase of dementia in rural areas.41,43,44,46-48 The results were unclear in several of these studies,20,40 and showed no difference in one study investigating the variation of AD drug dispensing17. Of the two studies suggesting an increase in urban areas, one was specifically investigating dementia (AD) deaths, 42 and the other newly diagnosed diabetic patients.45

Most studies only assessed the relationship between residence at one time point and subsequent dementia, but one study41 investigated childhood and adulthood residence, finding childhood rural residence was linked with a non-significant trend for risk of dementia (HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 0.93-2.49, p=0.08), which became significant in adulthood (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.06-2.46, p<0.05).41, but there was no association in late-life (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49-1.23, p=0.29).41

Risk of Bias

Figures 3 and Appendix 7 show the risk of bias assessments for included studies. There was great variation in the risk of bias and, in particular, high risk in measurement of exposure (geographical location) in approximately half of the studies.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Summary of Risk of Bias assessment: rural/urban differences in dementia

DISCUSSION

Overall, rural living was associated with small increased odds of dementia compared to urban living (OR, 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40, P value = 0.0182; N=25,274,741, NDementia=3,462,039; 33 studies). Further stratification by HICs and L-MICs showed this difference was mostly driven by L-MICs (1.33, 1.06 -1.68, P value = 0.0141; N=53,141, NDementia=3406 20 studies). In large HICs, odds of dementia were higher in urban areas (0.88, 0.84-0.92). To our knowledge, this difference has not been reported before, and has important implications for research and policy in this area. Studies were heterogeneous in the definition of ‘rural’ or ‘urban’ and identification of dementia, and there was high risk of bias in the exposure (geographical variation). Studies often did not report when in the life-course the geographical exposure was measured, and whether this changed across their lifetime, and the association between rurality and dementia prevalence and incidence may change with at different ages.

Increased risk of dementia in those living in rural areas may be due to specific aspects of living in these geographical locations, such as access to healthcare services/dementia diagnosis, air pollution or social connections, or may be confounded or mediated by education or socio-economic status.1 There is a complex interplay between the environment and the individual living in it. For dementia risk, this includes direct and indirect associations between the environment, and cognition, and noting that both of these can change across the life course.49

Dementia prevalence can vary country to country, influenced by the drive to seek a dementia diagnosis as well as the different the methodologies used for dementia ascertainment. A recent systematic review recommends using multiple sources, including access to medical records, to ascertain dementia to improve consistency in methodologies between studies.50,51 For example, in another systematic review52 which found a mixed picture between green space exposure and dementia risk, green space exposure was associated with higher incidence of dementia measured by anti-dementia medication and reversed if the other methods for detecting dementia were used.53 It is therefore essential that the method(s) of dementia ascertainment is clearly reported and the potential limitations and biases of this acknowledged.

When comparing multiple studies it is important that the dementia ascertainment rate for the study population is calculated and compared with an expected rate.51 Dementia diagnosis, particularly in L-MICs, can still be challenging, and there is ongoing debate about the best criteria for dementia diagnosis:54 criteria (such as the 10/66 criteria) may have greater accuracy than DSM-IV in low levels of literacy.54 Furthermore, in rural areas in general, or L-MICs, there may be limited access to diagnostic assessment, 55 especially if services are centralised.56 Our systematic review did not show an increased risk of dementia in urban settings to suggest this bias, but this needs considered when data are included from more countries.

There may be increased cognitive reserve in people living in urban areas 49,57,58, particularly during childhood, which influences dementia variation between rural and urban living. The impact from social deprivation may be higher than that from rural or urban location (e.g. the odds of a cognitive disorder were twice as high in those living in poor-quality rural environments, than those in rural areas).16

Education influences dementia risk, 59 but few studies investigated education in relation to the geographical area across time. Socio-economic status (SES) also influences dementia prevalence rates50,60. Our systematic review was unable to assess for SES in influencing the difference in rural versus urban dementia risk. Whilst education, SES and other variables for overall dementia risk were often reported, these variables were rarely considered in relation to rural or urban areas. Further work is required to understand the complex interplay between geographical location, education, socioeconomic circumstances, prior cognitive ability and dementia risk: whether there are critical time points in a person’s life where individual or combined factors influence dementia risk. Future studies should include more detailed information on participants’ education, SES measures in relation to geographical area, as well as the different definitions of geographical categorisation.

Comparison with other literature

This large and comprehensive systematic review builds on a previous systematic review in 2010 which showed, in 25 rural versus urban studies, that there was some evidence of greater all-cause dementia odds with rural living [prevalence OR = 1.11, 90% CI 0.79-1.57; incidence OR = 1.20, 90% CI 0.84-1.71], and that the association between rurality and dementia risk was stronger in studies only including people with Alzheimer Disease (OR=1.50, 90% CI 1.33-1.69), but weaker in studies only including people with vascular dementia (OR= 1.09, 90% CI 0.65-1.83). The review also suggested that exposure to rural living early in life further increases the risk of subsequent dementia.

In comparison, our subsequent review which included 38 new papers was unable to investigate the dementia sub-type risk, or the life course effect of geographical location, as too few studies which reported adequate data on these predictors to undertake meaningful meta-analysis. Most studies used dementia as a ‘blanket’ term encompassing different sub-types of dementia, and did not provide adequate data for the life course effect of geographical location on dementia risk. The previous review investigated dementia prevalence and incidence at a number of geographical scales (country-to-country comparisons, rural to urban comparisons, and regional comparisons), but there has been a rapid increase studies published on this topic, therefore our current review focussed on rural to urban comparisons.

Limitations and strengths: of the systematic review

The literature search for this comprehensive systematic review was developed with an information specialist and used a validated comprehensive search strategy from our previous review, with a pre-registered protocol, and was reported according to PRISMA guidance. At least two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and extracted and analysed the studies with high levels of agreement using proforma which was produced and trialled for data extraction, and risk of bias (adapting the ROBANS tool). Authors were contacted for additional information, to increase data available for meta-analysis. The language was not limited to English to minimise bias in selecting papers for review.

The limitations of this study include that despite a comprehensive search strategy including forward citation of included studies; it is possible that relevant papers may have been missed, as we did not search for grey literature. There is also significant variation within and between countries of the level of geography which is recorded.

The Risk of Bias assessment tool was based on ROBANS and whilst it did assess the quality of the method of dementia ascertainment, for the studies using big data and ICD-10 codes it was not possible to assess the quality of that dementia diagnosis.

Limitations and strengths: of the included studies

We identified 38 new relevant papers in the last 5 years, and were able to extract, or calculate, odds ratios for 27 papers (33 studies) for the meta-analysis, including studies from a range of L-MICs and HICs. The sample sizes were overall large (range 90 to 73,000,000, median 2170 for all papers, and 300 to 21,624,228, median 2162, for those in the meta-analysis) and the method of defining dementia was reported in the studies.

The individual studies were heterogeneous in their methodologies. In particular, there was significant heterogeneity in of the definition of ‘rural’ and ‘urban’, and how this translates at an international level for comparison. Too few studies reported the impact of geographical location at different time points in a person’s life to include in meta-analysis. This means there could be confounding or bias influencing the risk of dementia.

There is a need for standard definitions of urbanisation and rurality, and a clearer definition of “place.”49 Despite proposed quantifiable measures of urbanisation through population density and sprawl and further evaluation of physical characteristics of proximal environments,49 none of our included papers considered these factors.

It is also important to acknowledge that diagnostic coverage, those diagnosed with dementia rather than the true dementia prevalence, can be low61 and therefore missed cases (particularly within studies using large big datasets of routinely collected data62) may introduce bias, potentially under-reporting, in interpreting geographical variation of dementia versus traditional face-to-face epidemiological studies.

Implications

There has been a rapid increase in interest in the geographical predictors of dementia, therefore this study, limited only to urban versus rural geographical variation, confirmed previous findings of increased odds of subsequent dementia for people living in rural areas. The heterogeneity of the studies means understanding rural versus urban risk of dementia is complicated. To ensure a future robust study to investigate the geographical variation of rural versus urban living and dementia risk (given our finding of OR of 1.16 to 1.26), the sample size would need to be approximately 1000-4 000 people.

Further consensus on the term ‘geographical location’ with clear definitions of ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ that is translatable across, and within, different countries is important to understand the complex interplay between the environment and the individual in relation to dementia risk. Future large-scale studies must also include detailed information about the area (including a measure of deprivation, greenspace, access to services etc.) and a person’s geographical location across time.

We know the incidence and prevalence of dementia is rising in L-MICs, but larger studies in this systematic review are in HICs, where they are more likely to have healthcare systems with routinely collected data allowing larger scale studies. Whereas, L-MICs are more likely to use traditional (smaller scale) face-to-face epidemiological studies. As these research methods are more costly than analysing nationally collected data, it results in fewer studies in L-MICs, with lower numbers of participants, but likely to provide more detailed analysis. Finally, the definition of LIC, HMIC and HIC has the potential to change with time, which is important to consider given the longitudinal aspect for dementia risk.

Conclusions

Overall, rural living was associated with small-increased odds of dementia, compared to urban living (OR, 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40, P value = 0.0182). Stratifying by HICs and L-MICs suggested increased odds of dementia in L-MICs rural areas, (1.33, 1.06 -1.68, P value = 0.0141). However, methodological differences complicate combining the extant literature. Therefore, better-designed studies with careful consideration of mediating and confounding variables are required to answer this important question definitively.

Data Availability

Add data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Acknowledgements

KEW was supported by clinical research fellowship from Alzheimer Scotland and the University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, part of the cross-council Lifelong Health and Wellbeing initiative (MR/L501530/1). Funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and Medical Research Council (MRC) is gratefully acknowledged. KEW is also supported by Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre.

JKB is supported by an NHS Education for Scotland/Chief Scientists Office Postdoctoral Clinical Lectureship (PCL/21/01).

GMT is supported by the Osteopathic Heritage Foundation Ralph S. Licklider D.O.

Lastly, we would like to thank Professor John Starr (co-author) for his huge lifetime contribution to dementia research worldwide. We are deeply saddened by his sudden unexpected death on 9 December 2018 and miss our colleague greatly. His input as co-author was important to this research.

Footnotes

  • ↵1 Guerchet 2013, Pilleron 2015, Prince 2012 (Mexico only) Rodríguez-Agudelo 2011 and Samba 2015: unclear if there is overlap in these L-MICs papers (as more than one similar study in the same country). Sensitivity analysis removing the smaller cohorts (Pilleron 2015, Rodríguez-Agudelo 2011 and Samba 2015) shows no significant change in result

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Livingston G, Huntley J, Sommerlad A, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet 2020;396(10248):413-446.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Russ TC, Batty GD, Hearnshaw GF, Fenton C, Starr JM. Geographical variation in dementia: systematic review with meta-analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology 2012;41(4):1012–1032.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.
    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj 2021;372:n71.
  5. 5.↵
    Covidence: Systematic Review Management. https://www.covidence.org Accessed 14th September 2023.
  6. 6.↵
    Khedr E, Fawi G, Abbas MA, et al. Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia among the elderly population of Qena Governorate, Upper Egypt: a community-based study. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 2015;45(1):117–26.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.
    Raina SK, Raina S, Chander V, et al. Is dementia differentially distributed? A study on the prevalence of dementia in migrant, urban, rural, and tribal elderly population of Himalayan region in Northern India. North American Journal of Medical Sciences 2014;6(4):172–177.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.
    Yuan J, Zhang Z, Wen H, et al. Incidence of dementia and subtypes: A cohort study in four regions in China. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association 2016;12(3):262–271.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Samba H, Guerchet M, Bandzouzi BN, et al. Incidence of dementia among older adults in central africa: First results from the republic of congo in the EPIDEMCA-FU study. Alzheimer’s and Dementia 2015;1):P221-P222.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    Tengku Aizan H, Krishnaswamy S, Siti Suhailah A, Yadollah Abolfathi M. Sociodemographic risk factors and correlates of dementia in older Malaysians. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 2010;30(6):533–539.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Tola-Arribas MA, Yugueros MI, Garea MJ, et al. Prevalence of dementia and subtypes in Valladolid, northwestern Spain: The DEMINVALL Study. PLoS ONE 2013;8(10).
  12. 12.
    Poddar K, Kant S, Singh A, Singh TB. An epidemiological study of dementia among the habitants of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Annals of the Indian Academy of Neurology 2011;14(3):164–168.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Pilleron S, Clement JP, Ndamba-Bandzouzi B, et al. Is dependent personality disorder associated with mild cognitive impairment and dementia in Central Africa? A result from the EPIDEMCA programme. International Psychogeriatrics 2015;27(2):279–288.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.
    Kim KW, Park JH, Kim MH, et al. A nationwide survey on the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in South Korea. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 2011;23(2):281–291.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Koller D, Eisele M, Kaduszkiewicz H, et al. Ambulatory health services utilization in patients with dementia - is there an urban-rural difference? International Journal of Health Geographics 2010;9(59).
  16. 16.↵
    Wu YT, Prina AM, Jones A, et al. The Built Environment and Cognitive Disorders: Results From the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study II. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2017;53(1):25–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Ganesh C. The diffusion of prescription drugs for Alzheimer’s disease among medicare beneficiaries [Ph.D.]. The Pennsylvania State University, 2010.
  18. 18.↵
    Hendrie HC, Smith-Gamble V, Lane KA, et al. The Association of Early Life Factors and Declining Incidence Rates of Dementia in an Elderly Population of African Americans. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences 2018;73:S82–S89.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Guerchet M, Bandzouzi-Ndamba B, Mbelesso P, et al. Prevalence of dementia in two countries of central africa: Comparison of rural and urban areas in the epidemca study. Neuroepidemiology 2013;41 (3-4):253–254.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Tornau F, Bruchmann G, Juckel G. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in the elderly in rural and urban areas in Germany. International Psychogeriatrics 2015;27:S167.
  21. 21.↵
    Goncalves-Pereira M, Cardoso A, Verdelho A, et al. The prevalence of dementia in a Portuguese community sample: a 10/66 Dementia Research Group study. BMC Geriatrics 2017;17(1):261.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Prince M, Acosta D, Ferri CP, et al. Dementia incidence and mortality in middle-income countries, and associations with indicators of cognitive reserve: A 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based cohort study. The Lancet 2012;380(9836):50-58.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Rodriguez-Agudelo Y, Solis-Vivanco R, Acosta-Castillo I, et al. Neuropsychiatric symptoms in older adulte with and without dementia in urban and rural regions. Results of the 10/66 Dementia Research Group in Mexico. [Spanish] Sintomas neuropsiquiatricos en adultos mayores con y sin demencia de regiones urbana y rural. Resultados del Grupo de Investigacion en Demencia 10/66 en Mexico. Revista de Investigacion Clinica 2011;63(4):382-390.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Prince M. Dementia in developing countries. A consensus statement from the 10/66 Dementia Research Group. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000;15(1):14-20.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Prina AM, Mayston R, Wu YT, Prince M. A review of the 10/66 dementia research group. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2019;54(1):1–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Guerchet M, Ndamba-Bandzouzi B, Mbelesso P, et al. Comparison of rural and urban dementia prevalences in two countries of central africa: The epidemca study. Alzheimer’s and Dementia 2013;1):P688.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Wellcome. Low-and middle-income countries. https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/guidance/low-and-middle-income-countries Accessed 8th September, 2023.
  28. 28.↵
    Abner EL, Jicha GA, Christian WJ, Schreurs BG. Rural-urban differences in Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders diagnostic prevalence in Kentucky and West Virginia. Journal of Rural Health 2016;32(3):314–320.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.
    Astell-Burt T, Feng X. Is the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease really higher in rural areas? A multilevel longitudinal study of 261,669 Australians aged 45 years and older tracked over 11 years. Health and Place 2018;54:132-137.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.
    Chen H, Kwong JC, Copes R, et al. Exposure to ambient air pollution and the incidence of dementia: A population-based cohort study. Environment International 2017;108:271–277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    Chen R, Ma Y, Wilson K, et al. A multicentre community-based study of dementia cases and subcases in older people in China--the GMS-AGECAT prevalence and socio-economic correlates. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2012;27(7):692–702.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    Deng J, Cao C, Jiang Y, et al. Prevalence and effect factors of dementia among the community elderly in Chongqing, China. Psychogeriatrics 2018;18(5):412–420.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.
    Goodman RA, Lochner KA, Thambisetty M, et al. Prevalence of dementia subtypes in United States Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 2011-2013. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 2017;13(1):28-37.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.
    Nunes B, Silva RD, Cruz VT, et al. Prevalence and pattern of cognitive impairment in rural and urban populations from Northern Portugal. BMC Neurology Vol 10 2010, ArtID 42 2010;10.
  35. 35.
    Sharifi F, Fakhrzadeh H, Varmaghani M, et al. Prevalence of Dementia and Associated Factors among Older Adults in Iran: National Elderly Health Survey (NEHS). Archives of Iranian Medicine 2016;19(12):838–844.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.
    Tripathi M, Vibha D, Gupta P, et al. Risk factors of dementia in North India: A case-control study. Aging & Mental Health 2012;16(2):228–235.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    Weden MM, Shih RA, Kabeto MU, Langa KM. Secular trends in dementia and cognitive impairment of U.S. rural and urban older adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2018;54(2):164–172.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.
    Jia J, Wang F, Wei C, et al. The prevalence of dementia in urban and rural areas of China. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association 2014;10(1):1–9.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Kim K, Park J, Kim M, et al. A nationwide survey on the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in South Korea. JAD, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 2011;23(2):281–291.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Nadel JL, Ulate D. Incidence and risk factors for cognitive impairment in rural elderly populations in Costa Rica^ien Incidencia y factores de riesgo para la discapacidad cognitiva en poblaciones rurales de tercera edad en Costa Rica^ies. Rev. biol. trop 2014;62(3):869-876.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Contador I, Bermejo-Pareja F, Puertas-Martin V, Benito-Leon J. Childhood and Adulthood Rural Residence Increases the Risk of Dementia: NEDICES Study. Current Alzheimer Research 2015;12(4):350–7.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Chammartin F, Probst-Hensch N, Utzinger J, Vounatsou P. Mortality atlas of the main causes of death in Switzerland, 2008-2012. Swiss Medical Weekly 2016;146:w14280.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Cornutiu G. The incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurodegenerative Diseases 2010;8(1-2):9–14.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Silva EFd, Paniz VMV, Laste G, Torres ILdS. Prevalência de morbidades e sintomas em idosos: um estudo comparativo entre zonas rural e urbana. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 2013;18(4):1029–1040.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Huang C, Chung C, Leu H, et al. Diabetes mellitus and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease: a nationwide population-based study. PLoS ONE 2014;9(1).
  46. 46.↵
    Taylor CA, Greenlund SF, McGuire LC, Lu H, Croft JB. Deaths from Alzheimer’s Disease - United States, 1999-2014. Mmwr 2017;Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 66(20):521-526.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Yin P, Feng X, Astell-Burt T, et al. Temporal trends and geographic variations in dementia mortality in China between 2006 and 2012: Multilevel evidence from a nationally representative sample. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 2016;30(4):348–353.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Zhao Q, Zhou B, Ding D, Guo Q, Hong Z. Prevalence, mortality, and predictive factors on survival of dementia in Shanghai, China. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 2010;24(2):151–158.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Cassarino M, Setti A. Environment as ‘Brain Training’: A review of geographical and physical environmental influences on cognitive ageing. Ageing Research Reviews 2015;Part B. 23:167-182.
  50. 50.↵
    Mullin DS, Stirland LE, Buchanan E, et al. Identifying dementia using medical data linkage in a longitudinal cohort study: Lothian Birth Cohort 1936. BMC Psychiatry 2023;23(1):303.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Sibbett RA, Russ TC, Deary IJ, Starr JM. Dementia ascertainment using existing data in UK longitudinal and cohort studies: a systematic review of methodology. BMC Psychiatry 2017;17(1):239.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Chen X, Lee C, Huang H. Neighborhood built environment associated with cognition and dementia risk among older adults: A systematic literature review. Soc Sci Med 2022;292:114560.
  53. 53.↵
    Astell-Burt T, Navakatikyan MA, Feng X. Urban green space, tree canopy and 11-year risk of dementia in a cohort of 109,688 Australians. Environ Int 2020;145:106102.
  54. 54.↵
    Ferri CP, Oliveira D. Harmonization of epidemiological studies on dementia in Latin America Why does it matter? Dement Neuropsychol 2019;13(4):363–366.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Zakarias JK, Jensen-Dahm C, Nørgaard A, et al. Geographical Variation in the Diagnostic Rate and Quality of Dementia Diagnoses. J Alzheimers Dis 2019;69(2):513–520.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Jorgensen TS, Torp-Pedersen C, Gislason GH, Andersson C, Holm E. Time trend in Alzheimer diagnoses and the association between distance to an Alzheimer clinic and Alzheimer diagnosis. European journal of public health 2015;25(3):522–527.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Brayne C, Wu YT. Population-Based Studies in Dementia and Ageing Research: A Local and National Experience in Cambridgeshire and the UK. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2022;37:15333175221104347.
  58. 58.↵
    Cassarino M, O’Sullivan V, Kenny RA, Setti A. Environment and cognitive aging: A cross-sectional study of place of residence and cognitive performance in the Irish longitudinal study on aging. Neuropsychology 2016;30(5):543–557.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Cadar D, Lassale C, Davies H, et al. Individual and area-based socioeconomic factors associated with dementia incidence in England: Evidence from a 12-year follow-up in the English longitudinal study of ageing. JAMA Psychiatry 2018;75(7):723–732.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Matthews FE, Arthur A, Barnes LE, et al. A two-decade comparison of prevalence of dementia in individuals aged 65 years and older from three geographical areas of England: results of the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study I and II. Lancet 2013;382(9902):1405-12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.↵
    Gauthier S, Rosa-Neto P, Morais JA, C W. World Alzheimer Report 2021: Journey through the diagnosis of dementia London, England: Alzheimer’s Disease International, 2021.
  62. 62.↵
    Wilkinson T, Schnier C, Bush K, et al. Identifying dementia outcomes in UK Biobank: a validation study of primary care, hospital admissions and mortality data. Eur J Epidemiol 2019;34(6):557–565.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted December 11, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Geographical variation in dementia: systematic review with meta-analysis
K.E. Walesby, S.D. Shenkin, J.K. Burton, C. Dunlop, C. Fenton, D. Gray, L.A. McGillicuddy, J.M. Starr, T. Wilkinson, G. Muniz Terrera, T.C. Russ
medRxiv 2023.12.11.23299178; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.11.23299178
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area