Home › Research › Risk factors
Social isolation, social support, and loneliness and their relationship with cognitive health and dementia
Johanna Joyce, Joanne Ryan, Alice Owen, Jessie Hu, Joanna McHugh Power, Raj Shah, Robyn Woods, Elsdon Storey et al.. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2021-11-05
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Most participants self-reported good social health (92%) with very few socially isolated (2%), with low social support (2%) or lonely (5%). Among women, social isolation and low social support were consistently associated with lower cognitive function (e.g., social support and cognition β = -1.17, p < 0.001). No consistent longitudinal associations were observed between baseline social health and cognitive decline (over median 3.1 years) or incident dementia (over median 4.4 years; social isolation: HR = 1.00, p = 0.99; low social support: HR = 1.79, p = 0.11; loneliness: HR = 0.72, p = 0.34 among women and men). Our study provides evidence that social isolation and a low social support are associated with worse cognitive function in women, but not men. Social health did not predict incident cognitive decline or dementia, but we lacked power to stratify dementia analyses by gender.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Joyce, J., Ryan, J., Owen, A., Hu, J., Power, J. M., Shah, R., et al. (2022). Social isolation, social support, and loneliness and their relationship with cognitive health and dementia. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5644
Vancouver
Joyce J, Ryan J, Owen A, Hu J, Power JM, Shah R, et al. Social isolation, social support, and loneliness and their relationship with cognitive health and dementia. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2022. doi:10.1002/gps.5644. PMID: 34741340.
BibTeX
@article{joyce2022-34741340,
author = {Joyce, Johanna and Ryan, Joanne and Owen, Alice and Hu, Jessie and Power, Joanna McHugh and Shah, Raj and Woods, Robyn and Storey, Elsdon and others},
title = {{Social isolation, social support, and loneliness and their relationship with cognitive health and dementia}},
journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1002/gps.5644},
pmid = {34741340},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5644}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Most participants self-reported good social health (92%) with very few socially isolated (2%), with low social support (2%) or lonely (5%).
- Among women, social isolation and low social support were consistently associated with lower cognitive function (e.g., social support and cognition β = -1.17, p < 0.001).
- No consistent longitudinal associations were observed between baseline social health and cognitive decline (over median 3.1 years) or incident dementia (over median 4.4 years; social isolation: HR = 1.00, p = 0.99; low social support: HR = 1.79, p = 0.11; loneliness: HR = 0.72, p = 0.34 among women and men).
- Our study provides evidence that social isolation and a low social support are associated with worse cognitive function in women, but not men.
- Social health did not predict incident cognitive decline or dementia, but we lacked power to stratify dementia analyses by gender.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Effect sizeHR = 1.00; HR = 1.79; HR = 0.72
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 63/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, 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 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry) |
| 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 | 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 | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 34741340) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 35 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100. |
| Total | 63 / 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.