Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Recent studies have found that marital loss through divorce or widowhood is associated with a higher risk of dementia for older adults. However, whether these associations vary by race and gender is less clear. To address this gap, we drew upon longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study (2000-2016) to investigate the association between marital loss and dementia risk, separately for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks. We further examined gender variations in the link between marital loss and dementia risk within each racial group. Results from discrete-time event history models suggested that widowhood is significantly associated with a higher risk of dementia for both Whites and Blacks, controlling for basic demographic characteristics. However, while divorce is significantly associated with a higher risk of dementia for Blacks, the association is marginally significant (p < 0.1) for Whites. There are few significant gender variations in these associations except for the effect of divorce among Whites. Even after controlling for economic and health-related factors, we found that divorce is associated with a higher risk of dementia among White men but not among White women. Economic resources explain a significant portion of the association between widowhood and dementia risk, more so for Whites than for Blacks. Our findings call for more research into the pathways through which marital loss shapes the risk of dementia across racial and ethnic groups.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 57/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 32 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 57 of 100. Total 57 of 100.32 of the 56 points we could judge = 57 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Social science & medicine (1982))
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33713925)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 32 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100.
Total 57 / 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.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

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.

APA 7th

Zhang, Z., Liu, H., & Choi, S.-W. E. (2021). Marital loss and risk of dementia: Do race and gender matter? Social science & medicine (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113808

Vancouver

Zhang Z, Liu H, Choi S.-WE. Marital loss and risk of dementia: Do race and gender matter? Social science & medicine (1982). 2021. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113808. PMID: 33713925.

BibTeX

@article{zhang2021-33713925,
  author  = {Zhang, Zhenmei and Liu, Hui and Choi, Seung-Won Emily},
  title   = {{Marital loss and risk of dementia: Do race and gender matter?}},
  journal = {Social science \& medicine (1982)},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113808},
  pmid    = {33713925},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113808}
}

Related studies in Disparities

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →