The mediating roles of social support and sleep quality in the relationship between depression and cognitive function among older adults living with HIV in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the mediating effects of social support and sleep quality on the relationship between depression and cognitive function among older adults living with HIV. This cross-sectional study used convenience sampling to recruit older adults living with HIV from the outpatient department of a designated AIDS hospital in Zunyi, Guizhou Province, China, between January and December 2024. Data collection involved the use of a general data questionnaire (which included demographic and clinical information), the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and the Social Support Scale (SSRS). The data were organized and analyzed via SPSS version 29.0 software and process software. In this study, there was a significant negative correlation between depression and cognitive function among older adults living with HIV. In regression analyses, depression accounted for 47.7% of the variance in cognitive function after adjusting for confounders, which increased to 65.7% when social support and sleep quality variables were included. Mediation analysis indicated that depression had a direct predictive effect on cognitive function, with this direct effect accounting for 35.35% of the total effect (95% CI - 0.332, - 0.055). Furthermore, social support and sleep quality exhibited a chain mediation effect between depression and cognitive function, contributing to an overall indirect effect that comprised 64.65% of the total impact (95% CI - 0.462, - 0.254). In this study, we found that depressive symptoms in older adults living with HIV have a direct effect on cognitive function. Additionally, these depressive symptoms influence the cognitive function of older adults living with HIV through chain mediation involving social support and sleep quality. To effectively delay cognitive decline in this population, enhancing social support and improving sleep quality are key strategies for achieving significant breakthroughs in this area.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".