Chelsea Liu1, Niranjani Nagarajan2, Lama Assi3, Kening Jiang3, Danielle S Powell3,4, Emily Pedersen3, Lori Rosman5, Dillan Villavisanis6, Michelle C Carlson4,7, Bonnielin K Swenor2,3,4,8, Jennifer A Deal3,4,8. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Welch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 7. Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. Disability Health Research Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are no standard practices for considering sensory impairment in studies measuring cognitive function among older adults. Exclusion of participants with impairments may inaccurately estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia. METHODS: We surveyed prospective cohort studies measuring cognitive function in older adults, determined the proportion that excluded participants based on sensory impairment and the proportion that assessed each type of sensory impairment, and described the methods of sensory assessment. RESULTS: Investigators/staff from 85 (of 192 cohorts) responded; 6 (7%) excluded participants with severe impairment; 80 (94%) measured hearing and/or vision impairment, while 5 (6%) measured neither. Thirty-two (38%) cohorts assessed hearing objectively and 45 (53%) assessed vision objectively. DISCUSSION: Findings indicate variation in methods used to assess sensory impairment, with potential implications for resource allocation. To ensure equitable inclusion of study participants, consensus is needed on best practices standardized protocols for assessment and accommodations of sensory impairment.
INTRODUCTION: There are no standard practices for considering sensory impairment in studies measuring cognitive function among older adults. Exclusion of participants with impairments may inaccurately estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia. METHODS: We surveyed prospective cohort studies measuring cognitive function in older adults, determined the proportion that excluded participants based on sensory impairment and the proportion that assessed each type of sensory impairment, and described the methods of sensory assessment. RESULTS: Investigators/staff from 85 (of 192 cohorts) responded; 6 (7%) excluded participants with severe impairment; 80 (94%) measured hearing and/or vision impairment, while 5 (6%) measured neither. Thirty-two (38%) cohorts assessed hearing objectively and 45 (53%) assessed vision objectively. DISCUSSION: Findings indicate variation in methods used to assess sensory impairment, with potential implications for resource allocation. To ensure equitable inclusion of study participants, consensus is needed on best practices standardized protocols for assessment and accommodations of sensory impairment.
Authors: J E Galvin; C M Roe; K K Powlishta; M A Coats; S J Muich; E Grant; J P Miller; M Storandt; J C Morris Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-08-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bonnielin K Swenor; Pradeep Y Ramulu; Jeffery R Willis; David Friedman; Frank R Lin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Gill Livingston; Jonathan Huntley; Andrew Sommerlad; David Ames; Clive Ballard; Sube Banerjee; Carol Brayne; Alistair Burns; Jiska Cohen-Mansfield; Claudia Cooper; Sergi G Costafreda; Amit Dias; Nick Fox; Laura N Gitlin; Robert Howard; Helen C Kales; Mika Kivimäki; Eric B Larson; Adesola Ogunniyi; Vasiliki Orgeta; Karen Ritchie; Kenneth Rockwood; Elizabeth L Sampson; Quincy Samus; Lon S Schneider; Geir Selbæk; Linda Teri; Naaheed Mukadam Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 79.321