Cited by 513Health disparities and outcomesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAging and Gerontology Research

Loneliness and cognitive function in the older adult: a systematic review

Open access
Boss, Lisa, Kang, Duck-Hee, Branson, Sandy·2015·International Psychogeriatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Loneliness is a significant concern among the elderly, particularly in societies with rapid growth in aging populations. Loneliness may influence cognitive function, but the exact nature of the association between loneliness and cognitive function is poorly understood. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize current findings on the association between loneliness and cognitive function in older adults. METHOD: A comprehensive, electronic review of the literature was performed. Criteria for inclusion were original quantitative or qualitative research, report written in English, human participants with a mean age ≥ 60 years, and published from January 2000 through July 2013. The total number of studies included in this systematic review was ten. RESULTS: Main findings from the ten studies largely indicate that loneliness is significantly and negatively correlated with cognitive function, specifically in domains of global cognitive function or general cognitive ability, intelligence quotient (IQ), processing speed, immediate recall, and delayed recall. However, some initial correlations were not significant after controlling for a wide range of demographic and psychosocial risk factors thought to influence loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: Greater loneliness is associated with lower cognitive function. Although preliminary evidence is promising, additional studies are necessary to determine the causality and biological mechanisms underlying the relationship between loneliness and cognitive function. Findings should be verified in culturally diverse populations in different ages and settings using biobehavioral approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1041610214002749

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boss, L., Kang, D.-H., & Branson, S.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Boss, Lisa
Venue
International Psychogeriatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
541-553
ISSN
1041-6102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120113719
Cited by
513
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Psychogeriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
loneliness, cognitive function, older adults, aging, processing speed, memory retrieval, intelligence quotient, psychosocial risk factors, biological mechanisms
MeSH terms
Aged, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Loneliness, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests

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