Home › Research › Risk factors
Social participation and mild cognitive impairment in low- and middle-income countries
Lee Smith, Jae Il Shin, Guillermo F López Sánchez, Hans Oh, Karel Kostev, Louis Jacob, Christopher Tejun Law, Christina Carmichael et al.. Preventive medicine, 2022-08-31
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Social participation may theoretically decrease risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, to date, no study has specifically investigated the association between social participation and MCI in LMICs, while the mediating role of loneliness is unknown. Thus, we investigated this association in a sample of adults aged ≥50 years from six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs; China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa) using nationally representative datasets. We analyzed cross-sectional, community-based data from the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health. A social participation score (range 0-10 with higher scores corresponding to greater levels of social participation) was created based on nine questions about involvement in community activities in the last 12 months. The National Institute on Ageing-Alzheimer's Association criteria were used to define MCI. Multivariable logistic regression and mediation analysis was performed. The analytical sample consisted of 32,715 individuals aged ≥50 years with preserved functional abilities [mean (SD) age 62.1 (15.6) years; 51.7% females]. In the overall sample, after adjustment for potential confounders, a one-unit increase in the social participation score was associated with a 13% decrease in odds for MCI (OR = 0.87; 95%CI = 0.82-0.93). Loneliness only explained 3.0% of the association. Greater levels of social participation were associated with a reduced odds for MCI, and this was not largely explained by loneliness. It may be prudent to implement interventions in LMICs to increase levels of social participation to aid in the prevention of MCI and ultimately dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Smith, L., Shin, J. I., Sánchez, G. F. L., Oh, H., Kostev, K., Jacob, L., et al. (2022). Social participation and mild cognitive impairment in low- and middle-income countries. Preventive medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107230
Vancouver
Smith L, Shin JI, Sánchez GFL, Oh H, Kostev K, Jacob L, et al. Social participation and mild cognitive impairment in low- and middle-income countries. Preventive medicine. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107230. PMID: 36057392.
BibTeX
@article{smith2022-36057392,
author = {Smith, Lee and Shin, Jae Il and Sánchez, Guillermo F López and Oh, Hans and Kostev, Karel and Jacob, Louis and Law, Christopher Tejun and Carmichael, Christina and others},
title = {{Social participation and mild cognitive impairment in low- and middle-income countries}},
journal = {Preventive medicine},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107230},
pmid = {36057392},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107230}
}
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
- In the overall sample, after adjustment for potential confounders, a one-unit increase in the social participation score was associated with a 13% decrease in odds for MCI (OR = 0.87; 95%CI = 0.82-0.93).
- Greater levels of social participation were associated with a reduced odds for MCI, and this was not largely explained by loneliness.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants32,715
- Effect size51.7%; OR = 0.87; 3.0%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Preventive medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 32,715 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36057392) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 37 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 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 “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.