Background

Bilingualism may protect against cognitive aging and delay the onset of dementia. However, studies comparing monolinguals and bilinguals on such metrics have produced inconsistent results complicated by confounding variables and methodological concerns.

Methods

We addressed this issue by comparing cognitive performance in a more culturally homogeneous cohort of older Spanish-speaking monolingual (n = 289) and Spanish-English bilingual (n = 339) Mexican-American immigrants from the Sacramento Longitudinal Study on Aging.

Results

After adjusting for demographic differences and depressive symptoms, both groups performed similarly at baseline on verbal memory but the bilingual group performed significantly better than the monolingual group on a cognitive screening test, the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS; p < 0.001). Group differences on the 3MS were driven by language/executive and language/praxis factors. Within the bilingual group, neither language of testing nor degree of bilingualism was significantly associated with 3MS or verbal memory scores. Amongst individuals who performed in the normal or better range on both tests at baseline and were followed for an average of 6 years, both monolinguals and bilinguals exhibited similar rates of cognitive decline on both measures.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that bilingualism is associated with modest benefits in cognitive screening performance in older individuals in cross-sectional analyses that persist across longitudinal analyses. The effects of bilingualism should be considered when cognitively screening is performed in aging immigrant populations.

Early social dysfunction is a hallmark symptom of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD); however, validated measures for assessing social deficits in dementia are needed. The purpose of the current study was to examine the utility of a novel informant-based measure of social impairment, the Socioemotional Dysfunction Scale (SDS) in early-onset dementia. Sixteen bvFTD and 18 early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) participants received standard clinical neuropsychological measures and neuroimaging. Caregiver informants were administered the SDS. Individuals with bvFTD exhibited greater social dysfunction on the SDS compared with the EOAD group; t(32) = 6.32, p < .001. The scale demonstrated preliminary evidence for discriminating these frequently misdiagnosed groups (area under the curve = 0.920, p = <.001) and internal consistency α = 0.977. The SDS demonstrated initial evidence as an effective measure for detecting abnormal social behavior and discriminating bvFTD from EOAD. Future validation is recommended in larger and more diverse patient groups.

Objective

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducted a randomized quality improvement evaluation to determine whether augmenting patient-centered medical homes with Primary care Intensive Management (PIM) decreased utilization of acute care and health care costs among patients at high risk for hospitalization. PIM was cost-neutral in the first year; we analyzed changes in utilization and costs in the second year.

Data sources

VHA administrative data for five demonstration sites from August 2013 to March 2019.

Data sources

Administrative data extracted from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse.

Study design

Veterans with a risk of 90-day hospitalization in the top 10th percentile and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit were randomly assigned to usual primary care vs primary care augmented by PIM. PIM included interdisciplinary teams, comprehensive patient assessment, intensive case management, and care coordination services. We compared the change in mean VHA inpatient and outpatient utilization and costs (including PIM expenses) per patient for the 12-month period before randomization and 13-24 months after randomization for PIM vs usual care using difference-in-differences.

Principal findings

Both PIM patients (n = 1902) and usual care patients (n = 1882) had a mean of 5.6 chronic conditions. PIM patients had a greater number of primary care visits compared to those in usual care (mean 4.6 visits/patient/year vs 3.7 visits/patient/year, p < 0.05), but ED visits (p = 0.45) and hospitalizations (p = 0.95) were not significantly different. We found a small relative increase in outpatient costs among PIM patients compared to those in usual care (mean difference + $928/patient/year, p = 0.053), but no significant differences in mean inpatient costs (+$245/patient/year, p = 0.97). Total mean health care costs were similar between the two groups during the second year (mean difference + $1479/patient/year, p = 0.73).

Conclusions

Approaches that target patients solely based on the high risk of hospitalization are unlikely to reduce acute care use or total costs in VHA, which already offers patient-centered medical homes.