OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify IADL measures which are specifically developed, validated, or adapted for use in LMICs to guide selection of such tools.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted (fourteen databases) up to April 2020. Only studies reporting on development, validation, or adaptation of IADL measures for dementia or cognitive impairment among older adults (aged over 50) in LMICs were included. The QUADAS 2 was used to assess quality of diagnostic accuracy studies.
RESULTS: 22 papers met inclusion criteria; identifying 19 discrete IADL tools across 11 LMICs. These were either translated from IADL measures used in high-income countries (n = 6), translated and adapted for cultural differences (n = 6), or newly developed for target LMIC populations (n = 7). Seven measures were investigated in multiple studies; overall quality of diagnostic accuracy was moderate to good.
CONCLUSION: Reliability, validity, and accuracy of IADL measures for supporting dementia diagnosis within LMICs was reported. Key components to consider when selecting an IADL tool for such settings were highlighted, including choosing culturally appropriate, time-efficient tools that account for gender- and literacy-bias, and can be conducted by any volunteer with appropriate training. There is a need for greater technical and external validation of IADL tools across different regions, countries, populations, and cultures.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to review epidemiological reports to determine the prevalence of MCI and its associated risk factors in LMICs.
METHODS: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception until November 2019. Eligible articles reported on MCI in population or community-based studies from LMICs and were included as long as MCI was clearly defined.
RESULTS: 5,568 articles were screened, and 78 retained. In total, n = 23 different LMICs were represented; mostly from China (n = 55 studies). Few studies were from countries defined as lower-middle income (n = 14), low income (n = 4), or from population representative samples (n = 4). There was large heterogeneity in how MCI was diagnosed; with Petersen criteria the most commonly applied (n = 26). Prevalence of amnesic MCI (aMCI) (Petersen criteria) ranged from 0.6%to 22.3%. Similar variability existed across studies using the International Working Group Criteria for aMCI (range 4.5%to 18.3%) and all-MCI (range 6.1%to 30.4%). Risk of MCI was associated with demographic (e.g., age), health (e.g., cardio-metabolic disease), and lifestyle (e.g., social isolation, smoking, diet and physical activity) factors.
CONCLUSION: Outside of China, few MCI studies have been conducted in LMIC settings. There is an urgent need for population representative epidemiological studies to determine MCI prevalence in LMICs. MCI diagnostic methodology also needs to be standardized. This will allow for cross-study comparison and future resource planning.