Home › Research › Risk factors
Neighborhood built environment associated with cognition and dementia risk among older adults: A systematic literature review
Chen X, Lee C, Huang H.. Social science & medicine (1982), 2021-11-09
Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures
Cognitive impairment associated with aging is a serious and growing public health problem. This systematic literature review contributes to better understanding the current state of knowledge on the roles of neighborhood environments in supporting cognitive health in later life. Literature search was carried out in 2020 using the seven databases most relevant to the topic. This review was restricted to peer-reviewed observational and quantitative studies that focused on 1) community-dwelling older adults as target populations; 2) neighborhood built environments as independent variables; and 3) cognition or dementia as outcome variables. Thirty-seven studies published between 1989 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria. The neighborhood built environment domains covered in these included urbanity/rurality, land use, neighborhood physical disorder, transportation infrastructure, urban design, and urban nature. Neighborhood resources and green space exposure were most frequently studied and linked to cognition-related outcomes. Neighborhood built environment was shown to be more pertinent to older adults' global cognition, memory, and dementia. Physical activity showed a mediating role between neighborhood built environment and cognition. The effect of neighborhood built environment on cognitive function was stronger among older women and those with disabilities or lower socioeconomic status. Evidence on the relationship between neighborhood built environment and cognition/dementia among older adults is moderate. Our findings highlight the need for more standardized and longitudinal measures of neighborhood built environment and high-sensitivity cognitive tests that capture the specific and relevant domains of cognition, to facilitate further exploration of the mediating and moderating effects of neighborhood built environment with cognition/dementia in older adults. This review offers insights for future research and policy efforts toward creating communities to support cognitive health and aging in place.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chen, X., Lee, C., & Huang, H. (2022). Neighborhood built environment associated with cognition and dementia risk among older adults: A systematic literature review. Social science & medicine (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114560
Vancouver
Chen X, Lee C, Huang H. Neighborhood built environment associated with cognition and dementia risk among older adults: A systematic literature review. Social science & medicine (1982). 2022. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114560. PMID: 34776284.
BibTeX
@article{chen2022-34776284,
author = {Chen, X. and Lee, C. and Huang, H.},
title = {{Neighborhood built environment associated with cognition and dementia risk among older adults: A systematic literature review}},
journal = {Social science \& medicine (1982)},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114560},
pmid = {34776284},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114560}
}
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
- Cognitive impairment associated with aging is a serious and growing public health problem.
- Our findings highlight the need for more standardized and longitudinal measures of neighborhood built environment and high-sensitivity cognitive tests that capture the specific and relevant domains of cognition, to facilitate further exploration of the mediating and moderating effects of neighborhood built environment with cognition/dementia in older adults.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| 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 | 2022 — 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 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 34776284) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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 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.