"One in three over-65s develop dementia"

anamenottaken
anamenottaken Posts: 4,198 Forumite
First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
edited 11 October 2013 at 2:48AM in Over 50s MoneySaving
I have noticed that, in order to encourage creating Powers of Attorney, this week's Email includes the statement that "One in three over-65s develop dementia.". This is repeating a statement promulgated by the Alzheimer's Society.

I wonder whether the staff working on the Email considered whether the statement was factually true.
«1345

Comments

  • I wonder how these statistics are compiled.

    A lot of very elderly people end up on "do not resus" and pneumonia ends up as number one on the death certificate.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24478942
  • The Alzheimer's statement is developed from just one study which gave an executive summary figure of 30%, which the Society adjusted to 1 in 3. I have not yet read the detail of the report or considered the number of individuals it may have involved.
  • margaretclare
    margaretclare Posts: 10,789 Forumite
    I would need to know a lot more about how this figure was arrived at. Bear in mind that there are different types of dementia, not all of them are Alzheimer's.

    Also, over 65? How much over? One year, 10 years, 20 years? 66, 76, 86?

    Sitting in lectures about statistics, even though that was some years ago now, had the desired effect - it made me question every figure which is trotted out as gospel.

    DH and I are 'over 65' by a few years, and we still have our marbles. One in three will get this, but that means that 2 in 3 won't.
    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Æ[/FONT]r ic wisdom funde, [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]æ[/FONT]r wear[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ð[/FONT] ic eald.
    Before I found wisdom, I became old.
  • I would need to know a lot more about how this figure was arrived at. Bear in mind that there are different types of dementia, not all of them are Alzheimer's.

    Also, over 65? How much over? One year, 10 years, 20 years? 66, 76, 86?

    Sitting in lectures about statistics, even though that was some years ago now, had the desired effect - it made me question every figure which is trotted out as gospel.

    DH and I are 'over 65' by a few years, and we still have our marbles. One in three will get this, but that means that 2 in 3 won't.

    The "over 65" for that statistic is for however long one lives. The Alzheimer's Society does look wider that Alzheimer's. but even using the word "dementia" needs careful examination. It's also about "dying with" rather than "dying because of".
  • Errata
    Errata Posts: 38,230 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker
    .................:)....I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
  • Errata
    Errata Posts: 38,230 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker
    Information on prevalence rates http://www.cfas.ac.uk/pages/hprevalence/index.html

    Sound journalism, which the MSE email purports to be, doesn't rely on one single source of information. Lazily journalism does.
    .................:)....I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
  • margaretclare
    margaretclare Posts: 10,789 Forumite
    Errata wrote: »
    Information on prevalence rates http://www.cfas.ac.uk/pages/hprevalence/index.html

    Sound journalism, which the MSE email purports to be, doesn't rely on one single source of information. Lazily journalism does.

    These figures are very interesting. The incidence does go up a lot, but mainly, from age 80 onwards e.g. women 65+ incidence is 1.5% but 20 years later, incidence is 27.5%. The incidence doubles between age 75-79 and 80-84, then increases again after 85. However, even at 85+ there is a 72.5% chance of not getting it, and there's a lot of difference between 65 and 85. I like the 72.5% chance of not getting it, assuming that I might live another 7 years to 85.

    I read the report about a possible cure. Even if such a 'cure' comes about and assuming that NICE are willing to pay for the eventual medication, it will not be possible to restore previous function to brain cells which have died. It would mean that very early accurate diagnosis was essential - screening of every person at age 65? - and early treatment.
    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Æ[/FONT]r ic wisdom funde, [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]æ[/FONT]r wear[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ð[/FONT] ic eald.
    Before I found wisdom, I became old.
  • Errata
    Errata Posts: 38,230 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker
    The important thing to remember is that incidence and prevalence rates measure the existence of a problem, not its severity.
    .................:)....I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
  • Be_Happy
    Be_Happy Posts: 1,391 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    edited 11 October 2013 at 3:37PM
    My grandmother died aged 95 and 'senile dementia' was shown amongst other things on her death certificate.

    She had no dementia problems, but had been refusing to speak to hospital staff because she wanted to go home. She was a very determined old lady.

    When this was pointed out on receipt of death certificate, young doctor said it wasn't important as 'all elderly people had some dementia'!!

    So much for accuracy of these statistics.
  • teajug
    teajug Posts: 488 Forumite
    I wonder how these statistics are compiled.

    A lot of very elderly people end up on "do not resus" and pneumonia ends up as number one on the death certificate.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24478942

    Or end up on the Liverpool Pathway and will starve to death, if they got no one to look out for them. :mad:
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards