Table 5 Studies Reporting other cognitive outcomes
Author (year) | Dimension of FSS | Coefficient (CI or P-value) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
Study Design: Cross-Sectional, Outcome: Executive Function | |||
 Gow et al., 2013 [34] | Satisfaction with FSS | positive direction of association; p = 0.075 | Satisfaction with social support is positively but not significantly associated with executive function |
 Bourne et al., 2007) [28] | Emotional | -0.14 (p < 0.05) | Emotional support significantly negatively associated with executive function |
 Frith & Loprinzi, 2017 [31] | Emotional | Any support: B = 6.4 (2.9, 10) | Emotional functional social support significantly positively associated with executive function (of individual support types, only spousal support significantly associated with cognition) |
 La Fleur & Salthouse, 2017 [44] | Emotional | 0.10 (p < 0.001) | Emotional support significantly positively associated with executive function |
 Zahodne et al., 2014 [59] | Emotional | 0.17 (0.06) 0.09 (0.06) | Emotional support positively associated with executive function |
 Bourne et al., 2007 [28] | Instrumental | -0.13 (p < 0.05) | Satisfaction with instrumental support negatively associated with executive function |
 La Fleur & Salthouse, 2017 [44] | Instrumental | 0.02 (p > 0.01) | Small positive association between instrumental support and executive function |
 Zahodne et al., 2014 [59] | Instrumental | DCCS: -0.04 (0.05) Flanker: 0.00 (0.05) | Instrumental support not associated with executive function |
 Ge et al., 2017 [32] | Emotional + Instrumental | R^2 = 1.44 (p < 0.001) | Emotional and instrumental support significantly positively associated with executive function |
 Hamalainen et al., 2019 [35] | Perceived / Subjective | B = 0.002 (p = 0.001) | Small positive association between perceived support and executive function |
 Krueger et al., 2009 [43] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.089 (p = 0.036) a | Perceived support significantly positively associated with executive function |
Study Design: Cohort, Outcome: Executive Function | |||
 Dickinson et al., 2011 [74] | Instrumental | 0.284 (p = 0.0064) 0.578 (p = 0.0333) | Instrumental support significantly positively associated with executive function |
 Liao & Scholes, 2017 [84] | Positive social support | 0.017 (0.009, 0.026) | Positive social support significantly positively associated with executive function |
 Liao et al., 2018 [83] | Confiding support | Y =  − 0.05 (− 0.17, 0.07) | No association between confiding support and executive function |
 Hudetz et al., 2010 [26] | Perceived / Subjective | z-score = -0.01, p = 0.33 | Perceived social support does not significantly predict post-operative executive functioning |
 Zahodne et al., 2021 [102] | Emotional | 0.11 (not significant) | Emotional social support positively associated with executive function |
 Zahodne et al., 2021[102] | Instrumental | -0.03 (not significant) | Instrumental social support negatively associated with executive function |
Study Design: Cross-Sectional, Outcome: Memory | |||
 Gow et al., 2013 [34] | Satisfaction with FSS | positive direction of association (p = 0.275) | Satisfaction with social support is positively but not significantly associated with memory |
 Ge et al., 2017 [32] | Emotional + Instrumental | Working: R2 = 0.18 (p < 0.05) Episodic: R2 = 0.11 (p < 0.001) | Emotional and instrumental support significantly positively associated with both episodic and working memory |
 Hamalainen et al., 2019 [35] | Perceived / Subjective | B = 0.002 (p < 0.001) | Small positive and significant association between perceived support and memory |
 Krueger et al., 2009 [43] | Perceived / Subjective | Episodic: 0.023 (p = 0.444) Semantic: 0.055 (p = 0.056) Working: 1.07 (p = 0.003) | Small positive association between perceived support and episodic and semantic memory. Much larger and statistically significant positive association between perceived support and working memory |
 Okely et al., 2021 [90] | Perceived / Subjective | - 0.169 (p < 0.05) | Lower perceived social support significantly associated with increased memory problems |
 Zuelsdorff et al., 2013 [64] | Perceived / Subjective | Immediate: 0.006 (not significant) Verbal:0.037 (not significant) Working: -0.024 (not significant) | Small positive association between perceived support and immediate and verbal memory. Small negative association between perceived support and working memory |
 Zuelsdorff et al., 2019 [65] | Perceived / Subjective | Immediate: 0.07 (p = 0.01) Verbal: 0.04 (not significant) Working: 0.04 (not significant) Visual: 0.09 (p < 0.001) | Perceived support significantly positively associated with immediate and visual memory. Perceived support positively associated with verbal and working memory |
 Kim et al., 2019 [41] | Emotional | 1.696 (p = 0.003) | Higher emotional support significantly associated with better verbal memory |
 La Fleur & Salthouse, 2017 [44] | Emotional | 0.11 (p < 0.001) | Emotional support significantly positively associated with memory |
 Oremus et al., 2020 [7] | Emotional | Immediate: B = 0.06 (0.03, 0.09) Delayed: B = 0.05 (0.02, 0.08) | Emotional support significantly positively associated with both immediate and delayed memory |
 Zahodne et al., 2014 [59] | Emotional | Working: 0.09 Episodic: 0.09 | Emotional support positively associated with both working and episodic memory |
 La Fleur & Salthouse, 2017 [44] | Instrumental | -0.01 (p > 0.01) | No association or small negative association between instrumental support and memory |
 Sims et al., 2014 [55] | Instrumental | -0.17 (p < 0.05) | Significant negative association between instrumental support and nonverbal recall |
 Zahodne et al., 2014 [59] | Instrumental | Working: 0.01 Episodic: -0.01 | Small positive association between instrumental support and both working memory. Small negative association between instrumental suport and episodic memory |
 Oremus et al., 2020 [7] | Positive | Immediate: B = 0.05 (0.02, 0.07) Delayed: B = 0.04 (0.01, 0.07) | Positive support significantly positively associated with both immediate and delayed recall |
 Oremus et al., 2020 [7] | Affectionate | Immediate: B = 0.05 (0.02, 0.08) Delayed: B = 0.05 (0.02, 0.07) | Affectionate support significantly positively associated with both immediate and delayed recall |
Study Design: Cohort, Outcome: Memory | |||
 Hudetz et al., 2010 [26] | Perceived / Subjective | z-score = -0.02, p = 0.40 | Perceived social support does not significantly predict post-operative verbal memory |
 Zahodne et al., 2018 [60] | Perceived / Subjective | Working: R^2 = 0.18 (p < 0.05) Episodic: R^2 = 0.11 (p < 0.001) | Significant positive association between perceived social support and both working and episodic memory |
 Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Emotional | -0.02 (p = 0.83) | Small negative association between emotional support and memory |
 Zahodne et al., 2021 [102] | Emotional | Working: 0.04 (not significant) Episodic: -0.11 (not significant) | Small positive association between emotional support and working memory. Negative association between emotional support and episodic memory |
 Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Instrumental | 0.01 (p = 0.93) | Small positive association between instrumental support and memory |
 Zahodne et al., 2021 [102] | Instrumental | Working: -0.03 (not significant) Episodic: 0.00 (not significant) | Small negative association between instrumental support and working memory. No association between instrumental support and episodic memory |
 Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Satisfaction with FSS | 0.18 (p = 0.06) | Satisfaction with social support positively associated with memory |
 Liao & Scholes, 2017 [84] | Positive social support | 0.018 (0.003, 0.033) | Positive social support significantly positively associated with memory |
Study Design: Cross-Sectional, Outcome: Language | |||
 La Fleur & Salthouse, 2017 [44] | Emotional | 0.13 (p < 0.001) | Emotional support significantly positively associated with language ability |
 La Fleur & Salthouse, 2017 [44] | Instrumental | 0.01 (p > 0.01) | No association or small positive association between instrumental support and language ability |
Study Design: Cohort, Outcome: Language | |||
 Hudetz et al., 2010 [26] | Perceived / Subjective | z-score = 0.01 (p = 0.69) | Perceived social support does not significantly predict verbal memory |
 Zahodne et al., 2018 [60] | Perceived / subjective | Initial cognitive level: 0.022 (-0.010, 0.054) Annual rate of cognitive change: 0.029 (-0.035, 0.092) | Reported childhood social support positively but not significantly associated with initial verbal fluency and rate of decline in verbal fluency |
 Zahodne et al., 2021 [102] | Emotional | -0.05 (not significant) | Negative association between emotional support and language ability |
 Zahodne et al., 2021 [102] | Instrumental | -0.07 (not significant) | Negative association between instrumental support and language ability |
Study Design: Cross-Sectional, Outcome: MCI | |||
 Kotwal et al., 2016 [42] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.02 (-0.33,0.37) | Perceived social support positively associated with better outcome on MoCA-SA |
 Poey et al., 2017 [52] | Perceived / Subjective | RRR = 0.962 (p = 0.259) (reference group no social support available) | Social support has a slightly protective effect on the onset of MCI |
 Zhaoyang et al., 2021 [62] | General social support | -0.13 (-0.34, 0.07) | Negative association between general social support and MCI |
Study Design: Cohort, Outcome: MCI | |||
 Wilson et al., 2015 [99] | Negative social interaction | HR = 1.09 (0.81, 1.495)a | Negative social interaction positively associated with MCI |
Study Design: Cross-Sectional, Outcome: Attention / Processing Speed | |||
 Zuelsdorff et al., 2013 [64] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.084 (p < 0.05) | Perceived social support significantly positively associated with processing speed |
 Zuelsdorff et al., 2019 [65] | Perceived / Subjective | 0.05 (not significant – specific p value not reported) | Perceived social support positively associated with processing speed |
Study Design: Cohort, Outcome: Attention / Processing Speed | |||
 Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Emotional | 0.07 (p = 0.95) | Small positive association between emotional support and attention / processing speed |
 Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Instrumental | -0.004 (p = 0.99) | Instrumental support not associated with attention / processing speed |
 Hughes et al., 2008 [79] | Satisfaction with FSS | 1.24 (p = 0.30) | Satisfaction with social support positively associated with attention / processing speed |