Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 16;73(Suppl 1):S10–S19. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbx169

Table 4.

Estimated Prevalence of Dementia by Age and Gender in 2000 and 2012, Three Model Specifications, HRS, Age 65+

No adjustment for proxy interviews; or mortality Adjusting for mortality; but not for proxy interviews Adjusting for proxy interviews and mortality
Total 2000 2012 Δ 2000 2012 Δ 2000 2012 Δ
 65–74 4.08 3.07 −1.01*** 4.08 3.07 −1.01*** 4.07 3.47 −0.6*
[0.34] [0.29] [0.32] [0.35] [0.29] [0.34] [0.36] [0.31] [0.34]
 75–84 14.23 10.23 −4*** 14.23 10.24 −3.99*** 14.39 11.15 −3.24***
[0.7] [0.65] [0.69] [0.75] [0.68] [0.72] [0.74] [0.7] [0.72]
 85+ 40.42 36.01 −4.4** 40.40 36.03 −4.37** 40.86 37.39 −3.47**
[1.57] [1.59] [1.72] [1.58] [1.63] [1.71] [1.58] [1.59] [1.7]
 65+ 11.89 9.78 −2.1*** 11.89 9.79 −2.1*** 11.99 10.48 −1.51***
[0.46] [0.46] [0.41] [0.48] [0.47] [0.4] [0.48] [0.49] [0.42]
Males 2000 2012 Δ 2000 2012 Δ 2000 2012 Δ
 65–74 4.20 2.27 −1.93*** 4.21 2.27 −1.93*** 4.17 2.71 −1.46***
[0.47] [0.29] [0.46] [0.47] [0.3] [0.47] [0.46] [0.33] [0.48]
 75–84 11.07 7.79 −3.28*** 11.07 7.80 −3.27*** 11.16 8.97 −2.2**
[0.87] [0.71] [0.95] [0.87] [0.74] [0.97] [0.91] [0.73] [1]
 85+ 30.01 25.84 −4.17 29.99 25.85 −4.14 30.29 28.11 −2.19
[2.18] [2.01] [2.63] [2.27] [2.16] [2.72] [2.25] [2.09] [2.77]
 65+ 8.77 6.48 −2.28*** 8.77 6.49 −2.28*** 8.81 7.34 −1.46***
[0.53] [0.46] [0.52] [0.54] [0.48] [0.53] [0.54] [0.47] [0.55]
Females 2000 2012 Δ 2000 2012 Δ 2000 2012 Δ
 65–74 3.98 3.75 −0.22 3.97 3.75 −0.22 3.99 4.12 0.13
[0.42] [0.39] [0.45] [0.41] [0.39] [0.47] [0.44] [0.42] [0.48]
 75–84 16.36 12.05 −4.31*** 16.37 12.06 −4.31*** 16.57 12.78 −3.79***
[0.92] [0.86] [0.95] [0.96] [0.86] [0.96] [0.96] [0.92] [0.99]
 85+ 44.92 41.26 −3.66* 44.90 41.27 −3.63* 45.43 42.18 −3.25
[1.83] [1.85] [2.13] [1.8] [1.83] [2.09] [1.88] [1.83] [2.1]
 65+ 14.08 12.31 −1.77*** 14.08 12.32 −1.76*** 14.24 12.88 −1.35**
[0.59] [0.61] [0.58] [0.6] [0.61] [0.59] [0.62] [0.64] [0.61]

Note. Standard errors in brackets. *, **, and *** denote statistical significance at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. The standard errors of the changes in prevalence are about the same as the standard errors of the levels in prevalence because of a positive correlation between the 2000 and 2012 prevalence estimates.