Home › Research › Risk factors
Social Connectivity is Related to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia
Hannah Gardener, Bonnie Levin, Janet DeRosa, Tatjana Rundek, Clinton B Wright, Mitchell S V Elkind, Ralph L Sacco. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2021
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Among 952 participants (mean age at first neuropsychological assessment = 69±8 years, 62% women, 17% Black, 13% white, 68% Hispanic), 24% developed MCI/dementia. Participants who had phone contact with friends/family 2 + times/week (91%) had a lower odds of MCI/dementia (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.31-0.89), with no association for frequency of in-person visits. Compared to those who were neither socially isolated (≥3 friends) nor lonely (reference, 73%), those who were socially isolated and lonely (3%) had an increased odds of MCI/dementia (OR = 2.89, 95% CI = 1.19-7.02), but differences were not observed for those who were socially isolated but not lonely (10%, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.60-1.84), nor those who were lonely but not isolated (11%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 0.97-2.59). This study raises the possibility that social connections confer some protection for cognitive health in the face of adversity and supports potential opportunities for community social interventions for improving cognition in disadvantaged populations.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gardener, H., Levin, B., DeRosa, J., Rundek, T., Wright, C. B., Elkind, M. S. V., et al. (2021). Social Connectivity is Related to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210519
Vancouver
Gardener H, Levin B, DeRosa J, Rundek T, Wright CB, Elkind MSV, et al. Social Connectivity is Related to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2021. doi:10.3233/jad-210519. PMID: 34719491.
BibTeX
@article{gardener2021-34719491,
author = {Gardener, Hannah and Levin, Bonnie and DeRosa, Janet and Rundek, Tatjana and Wright, Clinton B and Elkind, Mitchell S V and Sacco, Ralph L},
title = {{Social Connectivity is Related to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3233/jad-210519},
pmid = {34719491},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210519}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Among 952 participants (mean age at first neuropsychological assessment = 69±8 years, 62% women, 17% Black, 13% white, 68% Hispanic), 24% developed MCI/dementia.
- Participants who had phone contact with friends/family 2 + times/week (91%) had a lower odds of MCI/dementia (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.31-0.89), with no association for frequency of in-person visits.
- Compared to those who were neither socially isolated (≥3 friends) nor lonely (reference, 73%), those who were socially isolated and lonely (3%) had an increased odds of MCI/dementia (OR = 2.89, 95% CI = 1.19-7.02), but differences were not observed for those who were socially isolated but not lonely (10%, OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.60-1.84), nor those who were lonely but not isolated (11%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 0.97-2.59).
- This study raises the possibility that social connections confer some protection for cognitive health in the face of adversity and supports potential opportunities for community social interventions for improving cognition in disadvantaged populations.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants952
- Effect sizeOR = 0.52; OR = 2.89; OR = 1.05
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 40 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 952 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 (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 34719491) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 40 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 “caregiver”
195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.