Luciana Vita¹, María Milagros Pérez Parra¹, Josefina Castillo¹, María Roca^1,2 and Diana Bruno^1,2*

¹Instituto de Investigación en Psicología Básica y Aplicada (IIPBA), Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades UCCuyo, San Juan, Argentina
²Instituto de Neurociencias Cognitivas y Traslacional (INCyT), Fundación INECO, Universidad Favaloro, CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina

*Corresponding Author: Diana Bruno, Instituto de Investigación en Psicología Básica y Aplicada (IIPBA), Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades UCCuyo, San Juan, Argentina.

Received: August 23, 2023; Published: February 28, 2024

Abstract

Introduction: Demographic factors like age, sex and educational level are the main variables known to have an impact on cognition. In order to accurately detect cognitive deficits these factors are usually controlled in neuropsychological testing through the use of pertinent normative data. Besides educational level, social vulnerability implies other variables that have also been shown to have an impact on cognitive decline during ageing such as socioeconomic status. However, the impact of these variables is not often considered while conducting neuropsychological assessments, neither in clinical nor experimental settings.

Objective: to compare cognitive performance of a group of healthy older adults considered part of a socially vulnerable context with a group of similar sex, age and educational level but considered part of a non-vulnerable context.

Materials and Methods: 60 participants were included in the study: 30 were part of a socially vulnerable context (Group-1) and the other 30 were outside of that context (Group-2). They underwent a neuropsychological assessment which included cognitive (ACE III) and executive (IFS) and social cognition (Mini-SEA) screening tests, together with several other neuropsychological instruments classically used to assess different cognitive dominions.

Results: Significant differences were observed in cognitive performance between both groups (G1 y G2). Even when the cut-off point for low educational level was used, in G1 values below the cut-off point were found in more than 80% of the cases.

Conclusion: This study shows the impact that being part of a socially vulnerable context has on cognitive performance with the majority of healthy subjects of the socially vulnerable group being misclassified as demented even with the low educational cutoff taken into account. This finding is of great importance for clinical and experimental neuropsychological assessment worldwide, but mainly in regions such as LA where social vulnerability must be taken into consideration when selecting normative data to infer the presence of cognitive deficits.

 Keywords: Social Vulnerability; Elderly; Cognition; Neuropsychology

References

1. Santamaria-Garcia H., et al. “Factors associated with healthy aging in Latin American populations”. Nature Medicine (2023).
2. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (Indec).
3. Barro Robert J and Jong Wha Lee. "A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010”. Journal of Development Economics 104 (2013): 184-198.
4. Marmot Michael and Jessica J Allen. "Social determinants of health equity”. American Journal of Public HealthS4 (2014): S517-S519.
5. Santamaria-Garcia Hernando., et al. "The impacts of social determinants of health and cardiometabolic factors on cognitive and functional aging in Colombian underserved populations”. GeroScience (2023): 1-19.
6. Migeot Joaquín., et al. "Socioeconomic status impacts cognitive and socioemotional processes in healthy ageing”. Scientific Reports1 (2022): 6048.
7. Aartsen Marja J., et al. “Advantaged socioeconomic conditions in childhood are associated with higher cognitive functioning but stronger cognitive decline in older age”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences12 (2019): 5478-5486.
8. Ritchie Stuart J., et al. “Predictors of ageing-related decline across multiple cognitive functions”. Intelligence 59 (2016): 115-126.
9. Steptoe Andrew and Paola Zaninotto. "Lower socioeconomic status and the acceleration of aging: An outcome-wide analysis”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences26 (2020): 14911-14917.
10. Li Xiaoming., et al. “Aging of theory of mind: The influence of educational level and cognitive processing”. International Journal of Psychology4 (2013): 715-727.
11. Parra Mario Alfredo., et al. “Dementia in Latin America: paving the way toward a regional action plan”. Alzheimer's and Dementia2 (2021): 295-313.
12. Bartoloni Leonardo., et al. “A population-based study of cognitive impairment in socially vulnerable adults in Argentina. The Matanza Riachuelo Study. Preliminary Results”. Dementia and Neuropsychologia 8 (2014): 339-344.
13. Pages Larraya F., et al. “Prevalencia de las demencias de tipo Alzheimer, demencias vasculares y otras demencias en la República Argentina”. Revista Neurológica Argentina 29 (2004): 148-153.
14. Arizaga RL., et al. “Deterioro cognitivo en mayores de 60 años en Cañuelas (Argentina). Resultados del Piloto del Estudio Ceibo (Estudio Epidemiológico Poblacional de Demencia”. Revista Neurológica Argentina 30 (2005): 83-90.
15. Nitrini Ricardo., et al. “Prevalence of dementia in Latin America: a collaborative study of population-based cohorts”. International Psychogeriatrics4 (2009): 622-630.
16. Gonzalez Leandro M. "Vulnerabilidad social y dinámica demográfica en Argentina, 2001-07”. Cuadernos Geográficos 45 (2009): 209-229.
17. Sánchez-González Diego and Carmen Egea-Jiménez. "Enfoque de vulnerabilidad social para investigar las desventajas socioambientales: Su aplicación en el estudio de los adultos mayores”. Papeles de Población69 (2011): 151-185.
18. Riera Brenda Eliana. “Características de la vulnerabilidad social en la ciudad de Buenos Aires y su abordaje desde la política pública para el período 2008-2015. MS thesis. Buenos Aires: FLACSO”. Sede Académica Argentina (2018).
19. Pizarro Hofer Roberto. “La vulnerabilidad social y sus desafíos: una mirada desde América Latina”. Cepal (2001).
20. Ramos Ojeda Daliana. "Entendiendo la vulnerabilidad social: una mirada desde sus principales teóricos”. Revista Estudios del Desarrollo Social: Cuba y América Latina1 (2019): 139-154.
21. Bruno Diana., et al. “Validación argentino-chilena de la versión en español del test Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III para el diagnóstico de demencia”. Neurología2 (2020): 82-88.
22. Vita L., et al. “Normatización de la tercera versión del Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE III) en sujetos con bajo nivel de instrucción formal de Argentina y Perú Discurso”. (29 de septiembre-1 de octubre de 2022). XVII Congreso de la Sociedad latinoamericana de Neuropsicología, Montevideo, Uruguay (2022).
23. Torralva Teresa., et al. “INECO Frontal Screening (IFS): A brief, sensitive, and specific tool to assess executive functions in dementia–ERRATUM”. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 5 (2010): 737-747.
24. Sierra Sanjurjo Natalia., et al. “The IFS (INECO Frontal Screening) and level of education: Normative data”. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult4 (2019): 331-339.
25. Clarens María Florencia., et al. “Baremos en español del Mini-SEA (Mini Social Cognition and Emotional Assessment) en adultos normales de Buenos Aires” (2021).

Citation

Citation: Diana Bruno., et al. “The Impact of Social Vulnerability in the Elderly Cognition”. Acta Scientific Neurology 7.3 (2024): 35-44.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Diana Bruno., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.