The Relationship Between Subjective Cognitive Decline and Cognitive Leisure Activity Engagement: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is a common experience of self-perceived decline without objective cognitive impairment. It has been theorized that SCD is associated with participation in cognitive leisure activities (CLAs), but the evidence base is multifarious and unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize current evidence to determine the association between SCD and CLA engagement. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (last searched April 2023). Data were extracted against a priori inclusion criteria and synthesized narratively using Synthesis without Meta-Analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Reporting follows PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: From 4,447 records, 11 articles were included. Due to study heterogeneity, evidence on SCD and CLA association is inconclusive. Although a modest correlation was found between greater engagement in CLA and fewer reports of SCD, the heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, particularly in those addressing only perceived memory decline and CLA engagement, challenges definitive conclusions on this relationship. Evidence from mixed-method and qualitative studies indicated that perceived memory decline may cause negative feelings, such as shame and frustration, which may influence participating in CLA. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that participation in CLA is moderately associated with, and may act protectively against, SCD. However, establishing a directional or causal relationship between CLA participation and SCD outcomes requires further investigation through longitudinal and/or interventional studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".