ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Gendered differences in the prevalence and associated factors of dementia in Ghana: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex differences in alcohol use and perceptions of cognitive health in rural Uganda.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Co-creating dementia knowledge and action in Ghana: Evidence from a participatory stakeholder workshop.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Association between dietary self-care adherence and depression among adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Ghana: a cross-sectional study.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDementia as a global phenomenon has received significant attention in research due to the adverse effects it has on the daily functioning of its victims. Despite studies conducted in relation to the prevalence and associated factors of dementia in Ghana, not much attention has been paid to the influence of gender. The study, therefore, focused on estimating gender differences in the prevalence and associated factors of dementia in the Ashanti Region of Ghana.
methodsThis study adopted a cross-sectional design with surveys to recruit 800 participants who were 45 years or older. The data was obtained using the standardized Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) together with information on the various associated factors. A series of logistic models comprising of the total sample model, male sample model, and female sample model were estimated to analyse the data. All data analyses were completed in Stata version 14.
resultsThe overall prevalence of dementia was 23.38% [95% CI:20.44, 26.31]. More females 24.56% [95% CI:20.81, 28.31] compared to males 21.31% [95% CI:16.57, 26.04] were at risk of dementia. Younger age, attaining formal education, and belonging to richer households were negatively associated with the risk of dementia. In the total sample model, younger age and attaining formal education were negatively associated with dementia risk. In the male-female stratified models, education and household wealth index were negatively associated with dementia risk in the male sample while age and education were negatively related to dementia risk in the female sample.
conclusionThe study concludes that there are gendered differences in the prevalence and factors associated with the risk of dementia in Ghana. As such, interventions and programmes to identify dementia cases must be gender sensitive. Specifically, when addressing dementia risk in males, interventions should be directed towards those with lower wealth status. Likewise, when developing programmes to mitigate dementia risk in women, particular attention should be given to women in the oldest age category.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.