Cited by 1,361Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHealth disparities and outcomesAging, Health, and Disability

Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study

Fratiglioni, Laura, Wang, Hui-Xin, Ericsson, Kjerstin, Maytan, Margaret, Winblad, Bengt·2000·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Few data are available on the effect of social ties on dementia development. This study explored whether single social network components and different degrees of the social connections affect dementia incidence.Methods A community-based cohort of 1203 non-demented people, living at home in the Kungsholmen district of Stockholm, Sweden, and who had good cognition, was followed for an average period of 3 years. On the basis of medical and psychological data, 176 patients were diagnosed with dementia according to the criteria of the third edition revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Information on social network was obtained by personal interview by trained nurses at baseline. The covariates included in the analysis were age, sex, education, cognitive and functional status, depressive symptoms, and vascular diseases.Findings Those individuals living alone, and those without any close social ties, both had an adjusted relative risk for developing dementia of 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1 and 1.0-2.4, respectively). Compared with married people living with someone, single people and those living alone had an adjusted relative risk of 1.9 (95% CI 1.2-3.1). Infrequent contacts with network resources did not increase the risk of the disease if such contacts were experienced as satisfying. When all components were combined in an index, a poor or limited social network increased the risk of dementia by 60% (95% CI 1.2-2.1), and a significant gradient was found for the four degrees of social connections (p=0.0009).Interpretation An extensive social network seems to protect against dementia. Confirmation of this finding and further investigation to clarify the mechanisms are worthwhile due to the implications for prevention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02113-9

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fratiglioni, L., Wang, H.-X., Ericsson, K., Maytan, M., & Winblad, B.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Fratiglioni, Laura
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-04
Volume
355
Issue
9212
Pages
1315-1319
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2140884566
Cited by
1,361
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 86 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 59
FWCI
17.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
dementia, social networks, social ties, living alone, marital status, social isolation, social support, dementia risk, social network index, dementia prevention
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Dementia, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Risk, Social Isolation, Social Support, Cohort Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review