Observational study reveals that greater social support predicts better memory and processing speed in dementia caregivers, highlighting social connection as a target to prevent cognitive decline.
Background Limited research has examined neurocognitive decline in family caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD), despite most caregivers being over 65 and more susceptible to age-related declines due to increased stressors. The lack of insight into how psychosocial factors interact with caregivers’ neurocognitive functioning limits our ability to identify targets for reducing neurocognitive risk. Objective Investigate the effects of psychosocial factors on neurocognitive functioning of AD/ADRD caregivers. Methods The caregiver sample ( n = 42) consisted predominantly of older adults ( M age = 69.40, SD age = 11.58) who were caring for a spouse (64.3%). On average, caregivers provided 99 h of care per week for several years ( M = 3.42, SD = 2.39). Multiple linear regressions were conducted to examine the effects of psychological (i.e., depression, anxiety, pre-death grief, perceived stress) and social (i.e., social support, social network) factors on caregivers’ neurocognitive functioning (i.e., visuospatial memory, verbal memory, processing speed, intelligence, executive functioning). Results Social support significantly predicted visuospatial memory and processing speed. As social support increased, delayed visuospatial memory and processing speed improved when controlling for social network size. Conclusions Caregivers may face additional stressors and have limited time or opportunities for social engagement. Social support may be especially important for spousal caregivers losing a primary support source (i.e., spouse). Findings suggest social support is a potential intervention target for reducing caregivers’ risk of neurocognitive decline.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elliott et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: