Perceived Social Support as a Mediator of Cognitive Functioning in Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study in Rural Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aging is a multidimensional process influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors. Social support contributes to cognitive reserve by reducing stress, promoting mental engagement, and reinforcing a sense of belonging. Objective: To examine the association between perceived social support and cognitive functioning among older adults, and to investigate whether social support mediates the relationship between living arrangements and cognitive performance. Methods: The sample included 265 older adults aged 65 years and above, recruited using snowball sampling between March and July 2025 in rural communities. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and perceived social support was measured with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics in JASP, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: In this study, higher perceived social support from family, friends, and significant others was associated with better cognitive performance (MoCA: ρ = 0.363–0.497; p < 0.001). Participants with normal cognition (≥26 points) reported greater social support across all dimensions. Multiple regression showed that all three dimensions of social support significantly predicted MoCA scores (R² = 0.290), with the strongest effect from friends’ support (β = 0.371, p < 0.001). Mediation analysis revealed that perceived social support mediated the relationship between living arrangements and cognitive functioning, while the direct effect of cohabitation alone was not significant (indirect effect, p < 0.001). Conclusion: These results highlight the importance of perceived social support in preserving cognitive health in older adults.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".