Table 4 Studies reporting outcome of global cognitive functioning
Author (year) | Dimension of FSS | Coefficient (CI or P-value) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
Study Design: Cross-Sectional | |||
Alpass et al., 2004 [27] | Satisfaction with FSS | 0.034 (p-value not reported) | Satisfaction with social support is positively but not significantly associated with cognitive function |
Gow et al., 2013) [34] | Satisfaction with FSS | positive direction of association (p = 0.278) | Satisfaction with social support is positively but not significantly associated with cognitive function |
Keller-Cohen et al., 2006 [40] | Satisfaction with FSS | Quantitative data for this variable not reported | Satisfaction with social relationships did not predict performance on Composite Cognistat or BNT |
Bourgeois et al., 2020 [23] | Perceived / Subjective | 1.72 (p = sig) | Perceived social support significantly positively associated with better outcome on MoCA |
Conroy et al., 2010 [29] | Perceived / Subjective | OR = 1.3 (p = 0.175) | Low perceived social support (+ widowed and lives alone) positively associated with possible cognitive impairment |
Ficker et al., 2002 [24] | Perceived / Subjective | 3.589 (p < 0.001) | Cognitively impaired elders perceived their social support as significantly less adequate than did the cognitively intact participants |
Krueger et al., 2009 [43] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.068 (p = 0.003)a | Small significant positive association between perceived support and global cognitive function |
Lee & Waite, 2018 [45] | Perceived / Subjective | Female—0.65 (p < 0.05) Male – no association | Significant positive effect of social support on cognition only in female participants. No association in male participants |
Mehrabi & Béland, 2021 [46] | Perceived / Subjective | Partner—0.275 (0.028, 0.522) Children – no association Friends – no association Extended family – no association | Low perceived social support from partner significantly positively associated cognitive impairment. No association between perceived support from children, friends, or extended family and cognitive function |
Oremus et al., 2019 [6] | Perceived / Subjective | Proportion of participants with low cognitive function greater among persons who reported low perceived social support (and vice versa) | |
Saenz et al., 2020 [54] | Perceived / Subjective (from spouse) | Husbands: 0.02 (0.01,0.03) Wives: 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01) | Perceived social support from wife significantly positively associated with the husband’s cognitive ability |
Yeh & Liu, 2003 [58] | Perceived / Subjective (from friends) | 0.11 (p = 0.005) | Perceived positive support from friends is significantly and positively associated with cognitive function |
Zank & Leipold, 2001 [61] | Perceived / Subjective | R2 = 0.085 (p < 0.05) | Perceived social support positively and significantly associated with cognitive function |
Zhu et al., 2012 [63] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.020 (p < 0.05) | Total perceived support positively and significantly associated with cognitive function |
Zullo et al., 2021 [66] | Perceived / Subjective | OR = 0.93 (0.70, 1.24) | Individuals with subjective cognitive decline scored higher on the MSPSS indicating greater perceived social support |
Deng & Liu, 2021 [30] | Emotional | Relatives/friends/neighbors: OR = 0.219 (0.154, 0.311) Children: OR = 0.400 (0.293, 0.546) Spouse: OR = 0.242 (0.160, 0.366) | Emotional support from relatives / friends / neighbors, children, or spouse significantly associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment |
Harling et al., 2020 [36] | Emotional | 0.72 (0.63, 0.82) | Emotional support significantly associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment |
Kim et al., 2019 [41] | Emotional | 4.160 (p = 0.002) | Emotional support significantly positively associated with cognitive function |
Murayama et al., 2019 [48] | Emotional | Male: OR = 0.46 (0.24, 0.86) ** Female: OR = 0.59 (0.35, 0.99) ** | Higher emotional support significantly associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment |
Nakamura et al., 2019 [49] | Emotional | -0.02 (p = 0.04) | Higher emotional social support significantly associated with better cognitive scores |
Okabayashi et al., 2004 [50] | Emotional | Spouse: 0.02 (p < 0.05) Children: 0.05 (p < 0.05) Others: 0.01 (p < 0.05) | Emotional support from spouse, children, or others all significantly positively associated with cognitive function |
Pillemer & Holtzer, 2016 [51] | Emotional | 1.620 (0.343, 2.897) | Emotional support positively associated with cognitive function |
Weng et al., 2020 [56] | Emotional | OR = 1.68 (1.37 to 2.06) | Insufficient emotional support significantly associated with increased reporting of subjective cognitive decline |
Deng & Liu, 2021 [30] | Instrumental | OR = 0.242 (0.630, 0.804) | Instrumental (financial) support significantly associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment |
Harling et al., 2020 [36] | Instrumental | 0.73 (0.64, 0.82) | Instrumental support significantly associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment |
Millán-Calenti et al., 2013 [47] | Instrumental | OR = 1.04 (0.27, 4.0) b | Small positive association between instrumental support and cognitive function |
Murayama et al., 2019 [48] | Instrumental | Male: OR = 0.43 (0.22, 0.83) b Female: OR = 0.62 (0.30, 1.28) b | Higher instrumental support associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment. Significant association in males |
Nakamura et al., 2019 [49] | Instrumental | 0.00 (p = 0.97) | No association between instrumental support and cognitive function |
Pillemer & Holtzer, 2016 [51] | Instrumental | -0.235 (-1.535, 1.066) | Tangible support has a small negative association with cognitive function |
Ge et al., 2017 [32] | Emotional + Instrumental | R2 = 0.11 (p < 0.001) | Emotional and instrumental support significantly positively associated with cognitive function |
Gow et al., 2007 [33] | Emotional + Instrumental | 0.14 (p < 0.01) | Emotional and instrumental support significantly positively associated with IQ |
Holtzman et al., 2004 [38] | Emotional + Instrumental | 0.25 (p < 0.0005) | Emotional and instrumental support significantly positively associated with cognitive function |
Pillemer & Holtzer. 2016 [51] | Positive Interaction | B = 1.8883 (0.595, 3.171) | Positive social interaction positively associated with cognitive function |
Pillemer & Holtzer, 2016 [51] | Affectionate | B = -0.093 (-1.369, 1.183) | Affectionate social interaction not associated with cognitive function |
Rashid et al., 2016 [53] | FSS | OR = 2.6 (1.2–5.4) | Increased risk of cognitive impairment among individuals with poor social support |
Jang et al., 2020 [39] | Family Solidarity | 0.00 | No association between family solidarity and cognitive function |
Study Design: Cohort | |||
Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Satisfaction with FSS | 0.09 (p = 0.22) | Positive association between satisfaction with social support and cognitive function |
Bowling et al., 2016 [70] | Perceived / Subjective | Family: -0.01 (-0.30, 0.27) Friend: 0.02 (-0.29, 0.32) | Small negative association between perceived support from family and cognitive function. Small positive association between perceived support from friends and cognitive function |
Chen & Zhou, 2020 [73] | Perceived / Subjective | OR = 2.09 (p < 0.001) | Social isolation significantly associated with cognitive impairment |
Eisele et al., 2012 [75] | Perceived / Subjective | F-ratio = 2.114 | Positive association between perceived support and cognitive function |
Howrey et al., 2015 [78] | Perceived / Subjective | Rapid decline: 1.89 (p < 0.001) Slow decline: 0.25 Stable: 0.35 | In rapid decline group, social support significantly associated with increases in MMSE |
Hudetz et al., 2010 [26] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.01 (p = 0.64) | Small positive association between perceived support and cognitive function |
Kats et al., 2016 [80] | Perceived / Subjective | African Americans: -0.01 (-0.14, 0.12); Caucasians: 0.01 (-0.05, 0.05) | Small negative association between perceived support and cognitive function in African American population. Small positive association between perceived support and cognitive function in Caucasian population |
Luo et al., 2021 [86] | Perceived / Subjective | b = 1.90 (p = 0.050) | Quality of social relationships significantly predicts cognitive function |
Moreno et al., 2022 [88] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.066 (p < 0.001) | Significant positive association between perceived social support and cognitive function |
Pais et al., 2021 [91] | Perceived / Subjective (from friends) | HR = 0.77 (0.635, 0.933) | Perceived social support from friends significantly associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment |
Bedard & Taler, 2020 [69] | Emotional | OR = 0.97 (0.95, 0.99) | Emotional support had a small but significant protective effect against cognitive decline |
Chen & Chang, 2016 [72] | Emotional | Starting high and declining: 0.87 (0.71, 1.07) Starting low and declining: 0.77 (0.60, 0.99) | Emotional social support had a significant protective effect in the starting low and declining group compared with the high-stable group. (Protective but not statistically significant effect in starting high and declining group) |
Ellwardt et al., 2013 [76] | Emotional | 0.03 (intercept), 0.40 (slope), p = 0.06 | Emotional support positively associated with cognitive function |
Holtzman (2004) [38] | Emotional | Continuous model: 0.15 (p < 0.005) Categorical model: 0.18 (p < 0.004) | Emotional support was a significant predictor of MMSE scores |
Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Emotional | -0.05 (p = 0.45) | Small negative association between emotional support and cognitive function |
Noguchi et al., 2019 [89] | Emotional | -0.42 (p = 0.462) | Emotional support negatively associated with cognitive function |
Pillemer et al., 2019 [17] | Emotional | Incident cognitive decline: HR = 1.43 (0.94,2.18) Cognitive decline – males: HR = 1.62 (0.93,2.84) Cognitive decline – females: HR = 1.39 (0.68,2.84) | Emotional support positively associated with cognitive decline |
Seeman et al., 2001 [96] | Emotional | 1.26 (p = 0.07) | Emotional support positively associated with cognitive function |
Thomas & Umberson, 2018 [98] | Emotional (from children) | -0.004, p < 0.05 | Support from children related to fewer cognitive limitations |
Bedard & Taler, 2020 [69] | Instrumental | OR = 0.98 (0.94, 1.02) | Instrumental support had a small protective effect against cognitive decline |
Dickinson et al., 2011 [74] | Instrumental | 0.578 (p = 0.0333) | Instrumental support significantly positively associated with cognitive function |
Ellwardt et al., 2013 [76] | Instrumental | -0.01 (intercept), -0.02 (slope) | Small negative association between instrumental support and cognitive function |
Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Instrumental | 0.01 (p = 0.88) | Small positive association between instrumental support and cognitive function |
Noguchi et al., 2019 [89] | Instrumental | 0.38 (p = 0.642) | Instrumental support positively associated with cognitive function |
Pillemer et al., 2019 [17] | Instrumental | Incident cognitive decline: HR = 1.75 (1.12,2.72) Cognitive decline – males: HR = 1.91 (1.00,3.62) Cognitive decline – females: HR = 1.78 (0.94,3.35) | Instrumental support positively associated with cognitive decline |
Seeman et al., 2001 [96] | Instrumental | -0.04 (p = 0.93) | Small negative association between instrumental support and cognitive function |
Yin et al., 2020 [100] | Instrumental (sick care) | HR = 0.795 (0.550, 1.148) | Instrumental support negatively associated with cognitive impairment |
Noguchi et al., 2019 [89] | Emotional + Instrumental | Co-residing family: 0.28, p = 0.813 Non-residing family and relatives: 0.51 (p = 0.283) Neighbours and friends: 1.23, p = 0.006 | Significant positive association between emotional and instrumental social support from neighbours and friends and MoCA-J scores. Negative association between emotional and instrumental support from co-residing family or non-residing family and relatives and cognitive function |