Psychosocial burdens in early- versus late-onset dementia: analysis of discrimination, stress, and loneliness in the All of Us Research Program.

IF 4.3 3区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Innovation in Aging Pub Date : 2025-08-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/geroni/igaf087
Xiang Qi, Zhiyue Mo, Junyu Sui, Yanping Jiang, Bei Wu
{"title":"Psychosocial burdens in early- versus late-onset dementia: analysis of discrimination, stress, and loneliness in the All of Us Research Program.","authors":"Xiang Qi, Zhiyue Mo, Junyu Sui, Yanping Jiang, Bei Wu","doi":"10.1093/geroni/igaf087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Early-onset dementia (EOD, onset before age 65) is relatively rare but often devastating for patients and families. Individuals with dementia face stigma and psychosocial burdens; however, it is unclear whether those with EOD experience worse psychosocial outcomes than those with late-onset dementia (LOD) or no dementia. This study examined differences in psychosocial outcomes across EOD, LOD, and no-dementia groups.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study used data from the All of Us Research Program surveys and linked electronic health records (EHR). Diagnosis of dementia was identified through electronic health records (EOD [<i>n</i> = 442], LOD [<i>n</i> = 658], and without dementia [<i>n</i> = 79,035]). Outcomes included everyday discrimination, discrimination in healthcare settings, perceived stress, and loneliness. Negative binomial regression models were employed to compare outcomes by dementia status, adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EOD participants reported the highest mean levels of all psychosocial outcomes (e.g., everyday discrimination score of 8.3 in EOD vs 4.6 in LOD and 6.8 in no-dementia). In the fully-adjusted models, EOD was associated with significantly higher everyday discrimination (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62), discrimination in healthcare settings (IRR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15), and perceived stress (IRR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15) compared with LOD. No difference in loneliness was observed between EOD and LOD (IRR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.09). Compared with those without dementia, the EOD group also showed elevated levels of all outcomes. All differences remained significant after adjusting for covariates.</p><p><strong>Discussion and implications: </strong>Findings highlight the unique challenges faced by young adults with EOD and underscore the need for targeted interventions to reduce psychosocial burden in this growing population. As the prevalence of EOD continues to rise, clinicians and policymakers should prioritize supportive resources to mitigate these disparities for EOD patients and their families.</p>","PeriodicalId":13596,"journal":{"name":"Innovation in Aging","volume":"9 9","pages":"igaf087"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12505131/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovation in Aging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf087","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Early-onset dementia (EOD, onset before age 65) is relatively rare but often devastating for patients and families. Individuals with dementia face stigma and psychosocial burdens; however, it is unclear whether those with EOD experience worse psychosocial outcomes than those with late-onset dementia (LOD) or no dementia. This study examined differences in psychosocial outcomes across EOD, LOD, and no-dementia groups.

Research design and methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the All of Us Research Program surveys and linked electronic health records (EHR). Diagnosis of dementia was identified through electronic health records (EOD [n = 442], LOD [n = 658], and without dementia [n = 79,035]). Outcomes included everyday discrimination, discrimination in healthcare settings, perceived stress, and loneliness. Negative binomial regression models were employed to compare outcomes by dementia status, adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related covariates.

Results: EOD participants reported the highest mean levels of all psychosocial outcomes (e.g., everyday discrimination score of 8.3 in EOD vs 4.6 in LOD and 6.8 in no-dementia). In the fully-adjusted models, EOD was associated with significantly higher everyday discrimination (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62), discrimination in healthcare settings (IRR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15), and perceived stress (IRR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15) compared with LOD. No difference in loneliness was observed between EOD and LOD (IRR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.09). Compared with those without dementia, the EOD group also showed elevated levels of all outcomes. All differences remained significant after adjusting for covariates.

Discussion and implications: Findings highlight the unique challenges faced by young adults with EOD and underscore the need for targeted interventions to reduce psychosocial burden in this growing population. As the prevalence of EOD continues to rise, clinicians and policymakers should prioritize supportive resources to mitigate these disparities for EOD patients and their families.

早发性痴呆与晚发性痴呆的社会心理负担:我们所有人研究项目中歧视、压力和孤独的分析。
背景和目的:早发性痴呆(EOD, 65岁之前发病)相对罕见,但对患者和家庭来说往往是毁灭性的。痴呆症患者面临耻辱和社会心理负担;然而,尚不清楚迟发性痴呆患者是否比迟发性痴呆(LOD)或无痴呆患者经历更差的社会心理结局。本研究考察了EOD组、LOD组和非痴呆组在心理社会结局上的差异。研究设计和方法:这项横断面研究使用了来自“我们所有人研究计划”调查和相关电子健康记录(EHR)的数据。通过电子健康记录(EOD [n = 442], LOD [n = 658]和无痴呆[n = 79,035])确定痴呆的诊断。结果包括日常歧视、医疗环境中的歧视、感知压力和孤独感。采用负二项回归模型比较痴呆状态的结果,调整人口统计学、社会经济和健康相关协变量。结果:EOD参与者报告了所有社会心理结果的最高平均水平(例如,EOD患者的日常歧视得分为8.3,LOD患者为4.6,无痴呆患者为6.8)。在完全调整的模型中,与LOD相比,EOD与更高的日常歧视(发病率比[IRR] = 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62)、医疗保健环境中的歧视(IRR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15)和感知压力(IRR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15)相关。od组和LOD组在孤独感上无差异(IRR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.09)。与那些没有痴呆症的人相比,EOD组的所有结果都有所提高。在调整协变量后,所有差异仍然显著。讨论和影响:研究结果强调了年轻成年EOD患者面临的独特挑战,并强调了有针对性的干预措施的必要性,以减轻这一不断增长的人群的心理社会负担。随着EOD患病率的持续上升,临床医生和政策制定者应优先考虑支持性资源,以减轻EOD患者及其家属的这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Innovation in Aging
Innovation in Aging GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Innovation in Aging, an interdisciplinary Open Access journal of the Gerontological Society of America (GSA), is dedicated to publishing innovative, conceptually robust, and methodologically rigorous research focused on aging and the life course. The journal aims to present studies with the potential to significantly enhance the health, functionality, and overall well-being of older adults by translating scientific insights into practical applications. Research published in the journal spans a variety of settings, including community, clinical, and laboratory contexts, with a clear emphasis on issues that are directly pertinent to aging and the dynamics of life over time. The content of the journal mirrors the diverse research interests of GSA members and encompasses a range of study types. These include the validation of new conceptual or theoretical models, assessments of factors impacting the health and well-being of older adults, evaluations of interventions and policies, the implementation of groundbreaking research methodologies, interdisciplinary research that adapts concepts and methods from other fields to aging studies, and the use of modeling and simulations to understand factors and processes influencing aging outcomes. The journal welcomes contributions from scholars across various disciplines, such as technology, engineering, architecture, economics, business, law, political science, public policy, education, public health, social and psychological sciences, biomedical and health sciences, and the humanities and arts, reflecting a holistic approach to advancing knowledge in gerontology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信