The Many Faces of Dementia in Canada: Findings from the Landmark Study.

Background: With the rapidly increasing size of the dementia population, it is important to get a better understanding of the similarities and differences that are found across the people living with dementia. This work expands on the first report from the Landmark Study and takes a closer look at the many faces of dementia in Canada by highlighting some of the diversity that is found within the national projections for dementia. Method: Using the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis's socio‐economic statistical analysis platform, a simulation model was developed using demographic characteristics and risk factors for dementia to forecast the numbers of people living with dementia in Canada from 2020‐2050. Here, we will examine findings related to sex, Indigenous Peoples, ethnic origins, and young‐onset dementia. Result: In 2020, 61.3% of dementia diagnoses were in females and this sex ratio is projected to stay relatively constant over the three decades. By 2050, 1.08 million females and 637,000 males are projected to be living with dementia. For Indigenous Peoples of Canada, dementia numbers are estimated to increase by 273% (2020: 10,800; 2050: 40,300). By 2050, the ethnic background of people living with dementia will be quite different than today. People of Asian origin will increase from 8% of people living with dementia in 2020 to 24% by 2050. The changes are driven both by future immigration, and by people who have already immigrated to Canada in the past few decades. While most cases of dementia are found in older age groups, by 2050, the Landmark Study projects that there could be over 40,000 people under the age of 65 living with dementia in Canada, compared to the 28,000 in 2020. Conclusion: This study illustrates the changing landscape of dementia in Canada. The characteristics examined in this study, as well as other distinctions between people, can profoundly affect the way in which dementia is experienced and their care needs. When it comes to these differences, we propose that the best way forward is to examine them, generate evidence, listen closely to the recommendations that come from these communities, and collectively advocate for systemic change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]