Associations between social networks, cognitive function, and quality of life among older adults in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Having rich social networks is associated with better physical and cognitive health, however older adults entering long-term care may experience an increased risk of social isolation and consequent negative impacts on cognitive function. Our study aimed to identify if there is an association between accessing specific types of services or activities within long-term care on social networks and cognition. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 96 residents from 2 aged care providers in New South Wales, Australia. Residents were given a battery of assessments measuring social network structure (Lubben Social Network Scale, LSNS-12), quality of life (EuroQol 5D, Eq. 5D5L) and cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA). Demographic factors and service use factors were also collected from aged care providers' electronic records. Independent sample t-test, ANOVA and linear regression analyses were used to explore associated factors for cognition. RESULTS: Residents had a mean age of 82.7 ± 9.4 years (median = 81) and 64.6% were women. Most residents had cognitive impairment (70.8%) and reported moderate sized social networks (26.7/60) (Lubben Social Network Scale, LSNS-12). Residents who had larger social networks of both family and friends had significantly better cognitive performance. Service type and frequency of attendance were not associated with cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals most at risk of social isolation, having supportive and fulfilling social networks was associated with preserved cognitive function. The relationship between service provision and social interactions that offer psychosocial support within long-term facilities and its impact over time on cognitive function requires further exploration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".