SummaryBackgroundStudies have suggested that the prevalence of dementia is lower in developing than in developed regions. We investigated the prevalence and severity of dementia in sites in low-income and middle-income countries according to two definitions of dementia diagnosis.MethodsWe undertook one-phase cross-sectional surveys of all residents aged 65 years and older (n=14 960) in 11 sites in seven low-income and middle-income countries (China, India, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Mexico, and Peru). Dementia diagnosis was made according to the culturally and educationally sensitive 10/66 dementia diagnostic algorithm, which had been prevalidated in 25 Latin American, Asian, and African centres; and by computerised application of the dementia criterion from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV). We also compared prevalence of DSM-IV dementia in each of the study sites with that from estimates in European studies.FindingsThe prevalence of DSM-IV dementia varied widely, from 0·3% (95% CI 0·1–0·5) in rural India to 6·3% (5·0–7·7) in Cuba. After standardisation for age and sex, DSM-IV prevalence in urban Latin American sites was four-fifths of that in Europe (standardised morbidity ratio 80 [95% CI 70–91]), but in China the prevalence was only half (56 [32–91] in rural China), and in India and rural Latin America a quarter or less of the European prevalence (18 [5–34] in rural India). 10/66 dementia prevalence was higher than that of DSM-IV dementia, and more consistent across sites, varying between 5·6% (95% CI 4·2–7·0) in rural China and 11·7% (10·3–13·1) in the Dominican Republic. The validity of the 847 of 1345 cases of 10/66 dementia not confirmed by DSM-IV was supported by high levels of associated disability (mean WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II score 33·7 [SD 28·6]).InterpretationAs compared with the 10/66 dementia algorithm, the DSM-IV dementia criterion might underestimate dementia prevalence, especially in regions with low awareness of this emerging public-health problem.FundingWellcome Trust (UK); WHO; the US Alzheimer's Association; and Fondo Nacional De Ciencia Y Tecnologia, Consejo De Desarrollo Cientifico Y Humanistico, and Universidad Central De Venezuela (Venezuela).

SummaryBackgroundDisability in elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes is little studied; according to Global Burden of Disease estimates, visual impairment is the leading contributor to years lived with disability in this population. We aimed to assess the contribution of physical, mental, and cognitive chronic diseases to disability, and the extent to which sociodemographic and health characteristics account for geographical variation in disability.MethodsWe undertook cross-sectional surveys of residents aged older than 65 years (n=15 022) in 11 sites in seven countries with low and middle incomes (China, India, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Mexico, and Peru). Disability was assessed with the 12-item WHO disability assessment schedule 2.0. Dementia, depression, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were ascertained by clinical assessment; diabetes, stroke, and heart disease by self-reported diagnosis; and sensory, gastrointestinal, skin, limb, and arthritic disorders by self-reported impairment. Independent contributions to disability scores were assessed by zero-inflated negative binomial regression and Poisson regression to generate population-attributable prevalence fractions (PAPF).FindingsIn regions other than rural India and Venezuela, dementia made the largest contribution to disability (median PAPF 25·1% [IQR 19·2–43·6]). Other substantial contributors were stroke (11·4% [1·8–21·4]), limb impairment (10·5% [5·7–33·8]), arthritis (9·9% [3·2–34·8]), depression (8·3% [0·5–23·0]), eyesight problems (6·8% [1·7–17·6]), and gastrointestinal impairments (6·5% [0·3–23·1]). Associations with chronic diseases accounted for around two-thirds of prevalent disability. When zero inflation was taken into account, between-site differences in disability scores were largely attributable to compositional differences in health and sociodemographic characteristics.InterpretationOn the basis of empirical research, dementia, not blindness, is overwhelmingly the most important independent contributor to disability for elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes. Chronic diseases of the brain and mind deserve increased prioritisation. Besides disability, they lead to dependency and present stressful, complex, long-term challenges to carers. Societal costs are enormous.FundingWellcome Trust; WHO; US Alzheimer's Association; Fondo Nacional de Ciencia Y Tecnologia, Consejo de Desarrollo Cientifico Y Humanistico, Universidad Central de Venezuela.

BackgroundCultural adaptations of evidence-based psychological treatments (PTs) are important to enhance their universal applicability. The aim of this study was to review systematically the literature on adaptations of PTs for depressive disorders for ethnic minorities in Western countries and for any population in non-Western countries to describe the process, extent and nature of the adaptations and the effectiveness of the adapted treatments.MethodControlled trials were identified using database searches, key informants, previous reviews and reference lists. Data on the process and details of the adaptations were analyzed using qualitative methods and meta-analysis was used to assess treatment effectiveness.ResultsTwenty studies were included in this review, of which 16 were included in the meta-analysis. The process of adaptation was reported in two-thirds of the studies. Most adaptations were found in the dimensions of language, context and therapist delivering the treatment. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant benefit in favor of the adapted treatment [standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.94 to −0.49].ConclusionsCultural adaptations of PTs follow a systematic procedure and lead primarily to adaptations in the implementation of the treatments rather than their content. Such PTs are effective in the treatment of depressive disorders in populations other than those for whom they were originally developed.