Home › Research › Risk factors
Ageing without dementia: can stimulating psychosocial and lifestyle experiences make a difference?
Laura Fratiglioni, Anna Marseglia, Serhiy Dekhtyar. The Lancet. Neurology, 2020-05-26
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
In a world with an ageing population, dementia has become an urgent threat to global health and wellbeing. Psychosocial and lifestyle factors, such as higher socioeconomic positions, longer times spent in education, greater occupational complexity, reduced stress at work, and engagement in mental, physical, and social activities, have been hypothesised to supply resilience against dementia. Although questions remain surrounding the role of these factors in the development of dementia, scientific advancements have considerably expanded our understanding of modifiable psychosocial and lifestyle factors and their neuroprotective and compensatory influences over a life course. Evidence from observational studies is robust enough to suggest that stimulating psychosocial and lifestyle factors are protective against dementia. And, although the corresponding evidence from intervention studies is still scarce, public health campaigns promoting psychosocial and lifestyle factors might improve the health and wellbeing of people aged 60 years and older.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Fratiglioni, L., Marseglia, A., & Dekhtyar, S. (2020). Ageing without dementia: can stimulating psychosocial and lifestyle experiences make a difference? The Lancet. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30039-9
Vancouver
Fratiglioni L, Marseglia A, Dekhtyar S. Ageing without dementia: can stimulating psychosocial and lifestyle experiences make a difference? The Lancet. Neurology. 2020. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30039-9. PMID: 32470425.
BibTeX
@article{fratiglioni2020-32470425,
author = {Fratiglioni, Laura and Marseglia, Anna and Dekhtyar, Serhiy},
title = {{Ageing without dementia: can stimulating psychosocial and lifestyle experiences make a difference?}},
journal = {The Lancet. Neurology},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30039-9},
pmid = {32470425},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30039-9}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Evidence from observational studies is robust enough to suggest that stimulating psychosocial and lifestyle factors are protective against dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Lancet. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32470425) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.