34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnostic rates and treatment of dementia before and after launch of a national dementia policy: an observational study using English national databases

      research-article
      1 , 1 , 2 , 1
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      Public Health

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To assess the 2009 National Dementia Strategy's (NDS) impact on dementia diagnosis and treatment.

          Setting and participants

          Primary care data for England before and after launch of the NDS.

          Primary outcome measures

          We used nationally available data to estimate the trends over time in rates of dementia diagnoses recorded on the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) in Primary Care Trusts (PCT) and antidementia medication prescriptions from 2006/2007 (the first available figures) and the associated increase in cost relative to all other prescriptions. To establish PCT general practitioner (GP) QOF dementia recording validity, we correlated it with medication prescription using the NIC (net ingredient cost).

          Results

          Regression analysis showed that dementia diagnosis rate was lower prior to launch of the NDS and increased significantly after it was launched. The number of antidementia prescriptions and the cost of antidementia drugs relative to total PCT prescribing costs increased significantly after 2009. GP recording of dementia diagnosis correlated highly with prescription of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in the same area (p<0.001 each year).

          Conclusions

          The launch of the NDS was associated with a significant increase in dementia diagnosis rates and prescriptions of antidementia drugs. We cannot establish the causality but this was a change from the prelaunch pattern. Further assessment of any intervention to increase the diagnoses should include an assessment of harm as well as potential benefit.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study.

          100 years after the first description, Alzheimer's disease is one of the most disabling and burdensome health conditions worldwide. We used the Delphi consensus method to determine dementia prevalence for each world region. 12 international experts were provided with a systematic review of published studies on dementia and were asked to provide prevalence estimates for every WHO world region, for men and women combined, in 5-year age bands from 60 to 84 years, and for those aged 85 years and older. UN population estimates and projections were used to estimate numbers of people with dementia in 2001, 2020, and 2040. We estimated incidence rates from prevalence, remission, and mortality. Evidence from well-planned, representative epidemiological surveys is scarce in many regions. We estimate that 24.3 million people have dementia today, with 4.6 million new cases of dementia every year (one new case every 7 seconds). The number of people affected will double every 20 years to 81.1 million by 2040. Most people with dementia live in developing countries (60% in 2001, rising to 71% by 2040). Rates of increase are not uniform; numbers in developed countries are forecast to increase by 100% between 2001 and 2040, but by more than 300% in India, China, and their south Asian and western Pacific neighbours. We believe that the detailed estimates in this paper constitute the best currently available basis for policymaking, planning, and allocation of health and welfare resources.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            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

            Summary Background The prevalence of dementia is of interest worldwide. Contemporary estimates are needed to plan for future care provision, but much evidence is decades old. We aimed to investigate whether the prevalence of dementia had changed in the past two decades by repeating the same approach and diagnostic methods as used in the Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study (MRC CFAS) in three of the original study areas in England. Methods Between 1989 and 1994, MRC CFAS investigators did baseline interviews in populations aged 65 years and older in six geographically defined areas in England and Wales. A two stage process, with screening followed by diagnostic assessment, was used to obtain data for algorithmic diagnoses (geriatric mental state–automated geriatric examination for computer assisted taxonomy), which were then used to estimate dementia prevalence. Data from three of these areas—Cambridgeshire, Newcastle, and Nottingham—were selected for CFAS I. Between 2008 and 2011, new fieldwork was done in the same three areas for the CFAS II study. For both CFAS I and II, each area needed to include 2500 individuals aged 65 years and older to provide power for geographical and generational comparison. Sampling was stratified according to age group (65–74 years vs ≥75 years). CFAS II used identical sampling, approach, and diagnostic methods to CFAS I, except that screening and assessement were combined into one stage. Prevalence estimates were calculated using inverse probability weighting methods to adjust for sampling design and non-response. Full likelihood Bayesian models were used to investigate informative non-response. Findings 7635 people aged 65 years or older were interviewed in CFAS I (9602 approached, 80% response) in Cambridgeshire, Newcastle, and Nottingham, with 1457 being diagnostically assessed. In the same geographical areas, the CFAS II investigators interviewed 7796 individuals (14 242 approached, 242 with limited frailty information, 56% response). Using CFAS I age and sex specific estimates of prevalence in individuals aged 65 years or older, standardised to the 2011 population, 8·3% (884 000) of this population would be expected to have dementia in 2011. However, CFAS II shows that the prevalence is lower (6·5%; 670 000), a decrease of 1·8% (odds ratio for CFAS II vs CFAS I 0·7, 95% CI 0·6–0·9, p=0·003). Sensitivity analyses suggest that these estimates are robust to the change in response. Interpretation This study provides further evidence that a cohort effect exists in dementia prevalence. Later-born populations have a lower risk of prevalent dementia than those born earlier in the past century. Funding UK Medical Research Council.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models.

              The regression models appropriate for counted data have seen little use in psychology. This article describes problems that occur when ordinary linear regression is used to analyze count data and presents 3 alternative regression models. The simplest, the Poisson regression model, is likely to be misleading unless restrictive assumptions are met because individual counts are usually more variable ("overdispersed") than is implied by the model. This model can be modified in 2 ways to accomodate this problem. In the overdispersed model, a factor can be estimated that corrects the regression model's inferential statistics. In the second alternative, the negative binomial regression model, a random term reflecting unexplained between-subject differences is included in the regression model. The authors compare the advantages of these approaches.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2014
                9 January 2014
                : 4
                : 1
                : e004119
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Mental Health Sciences Unit, UCL, Charles Bell House , London, UK
                [2 ]Biostatistics Group, Joint Research Office, UCL , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Naaheed Mukadam; n.mukadam@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2013-004119
                10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004119
                3902654
                24413352
                4a063132-1c47-4b45-81ea-b4ef97da7764
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

                History
                : 26 September 2013
                : 29 November 2013
                : 5 December 2013
                Categories
                Health Policy
                Research
                1506
                1703
                1712

                Medicine
                public health
                Medicine
                public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article