Home › Research › Risk factors
Loneliness and Risk of Dementia
Sutin AR, Stephan Y, Luchetti M, Terracciano A.. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences, 2020-08-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective The present study tests whether loneliness is associated with risk of dementia in the largest sample to date and further examines whether the association is independent of social isolation, a related but independent component of social integration, and whether it varies by demographic factors and genetic vulnerability. Method Participants from the Health and Retirement Study (N = 12,030) reported on their loneliness, social isolation, and had information on clinical, behavioral, and genetic risk factors. Cognitive status was assessed at baseline and every 2 years over a 10-year follow-up with the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICSm). A TICSm score of 6 or less was indicative of dementia. Results Cox proportional hazards regression indicated that loneliness was associated with a 40% increased risk of dementia. This association held controlling for social isolation, and clinical, behavioral, and genetic risk factors. The association was similar across gender, race, ethnicity, education, and genetic risk. Discussion Loneliness is associated with increased risk of dementia. It is one modifiable factor that can be intervened on to reduce dementia risk.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sutin, A. R., Stephan, Y., Luchetti, M., & Terracciano, A. (2020). Loneliness and Risk of Dementia. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby112
Vancouver
Sutin AR, Stephan Y, Luchetti M, Terracciano A. Loneliness and Risk of Dementia. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences. 2020. doi:10.1093/geronb/gby112. PMID: 30365023.
BibTeX
@article{sutin2020-30365023,
author = {Sutin, A. R. and Stephan, Y. and Luchetti, M. and Terracciano, A.},
title = {{Loneliness and Risk of Dementia}},
journal = {The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1093/geronb/gby112},
pmid = {30365023},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby112}
}
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
- Objective The present study tests whether loneliness is associated with risk of dementia in the largest sample to date and further examines whether the association is independent of social isolation, a related but independent component of social integration, and whether it varies by demographic factors and genetic vulnerability.
- Results Cox proportional hazards regression indicated that loneliness was associated with a 40% increased risk of dementia.
- Discussion Loneliness is associated with increased risk of dementia.
Why it matters
Among 12,030 Health and Retirement Study participants followed for 10 years, people who reported loneliness had a 40% higher risk of dementia. Here dementia meant a score of 6 or less on a telephone cognitive test. The link held after accounting for social isolation and clinical, behavioral and genetic risk factors, and was similar across gender, race, ethnicity, education and genetic risk. The authors call loneliness a modifiable factor, but this study shows an association only and tested no intervention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants12,030
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / 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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences) |
| 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 | 4 / 4 | 12,030 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (OpenAlex dates this DOI to 2018, the record says 2020; OpenAlex values not used) — 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 | 3 / 6 | Cited by 12 other studies in this library |
| 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30365023) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 32 / 64 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
12 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.