Suchergebnisse

This study examined whether participation in a variety of lifestyle activities was comparable to frequent participation in cognitively challenging activities in mitigating impairments in cognitive abilities susceptible to aging in healthy, community-dwelling older women. Frequencies of participation in various lifestyle activities on the Lifestyle Activities Questionnaire (LAQ) were divided according to high (e.g., reading), moderate (e.g., discussing politics), and low (e.g., watching television) cognitive demand. We also considered the utility of participation in a variety of lifestyle activities regardless of cognitive challenge. Immediate and delayed verbal recall, psychomotor speed, and executive function were each measured at baseline and at five successive exams, spanning a 9.5-year interval. Greater variety of participation in activities, regardless of cognitive challenge, was associated with an 8 to 11% reduction in the risk of impairment in verbal memory and global cognitive outcomes. Participation in a variety of lifestyle activities was more predictive than frequency or level of cognitive challenge for significant reductions in risk of incident impairment on measures sensitive to cognitive aging and risk for dementia. Our findings offer new perspectives in promoting a diverse repertoire of activities to mitigate age-related cognitive declines.

Globally, there are growing concerns about rates and consequences of loneliness, especially among older adults. In response, 2018 saw the launch of a UK loneliness strategy and the first minister for loneliness in the world appointed. In the USA, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine set up a special committee to examine the problem.1 Demographic shifts suggest that the numbers experiencing loneliness are likely to increase. However, it is important to recognise that most older adults are not chronically lonely and loneliness is also experienced by other age groups, especially young adults. Large gaps remain in our understanding of loneliness, rates and drivers of loneliness in different populations, its effect on health and wellbeing, and evidence on effective interventions. We believe loneliness can be defined as a subjective negative experience that results from inadequate meaningful connections, but neither definitions nor assessments of loneliness have achieved wide-scale consensus. The variety of scales and single-item measures of loneliness used to date should be standardised to advance knowledge with an agreed common set of valid measures. Currently, there is inadequate causal evidence of the consequences of loneliness but associations with poor health and wellbeing have been established. The evidence shows associations with depression, anxiety, non-communicable diseases, poor health behaviours, stress, sleep, cognition, and premature mortality (with the evidence especially strong for depression).2 However, further work is required to establish causality between loneliness and specific health outcomes, and vice versa, as well as to investigate social consequences that remain unclear. Structural and cultural changes (eg, technology and social media use) and societal forces (eg, perceptions and expectations around ageing and ageism) and their effect on loneliness also need to be better understood. The evidence base for loneliness interventions is characterised by poorly constructed trials with small samples, a lack of theoretical frameworks, undefined target groups, heterogeneous measures of loneliness, and short follow-up periods. Within this context the charity, voluntary or community sectors, and government are delivering programmes, often with inadequate empirical evidence. Key therapeutic elements of interventions must be identified, as well as their optimal intensity, frequency, and duration. Although inevitably more complex to implement and evaluate, evidence indicates that interventions must be tailored and matched to specific root causes of loneliness. This Correspondence is based on discussions from a meeting in Belfast, held in December, 2018, of international researchers that led to the establishment of an International Loneliness and social Isolation research NetworK (I-LINK) to drive this work. Research, policy, and practice can only benefit from a greater pooling of expertise and knowledge exchange to address this global challenge.

In order to sustain and improve the health of Americans, to ensure our ability to overcome new health challenges, and to realize the economic benefits of a vigorous scientific economy, we encourage our government to implement three actions. First, establish predictable, managed growth in the US scientific enterprise by establishing a sustainable and predictable real annual increase in science funding. This will require additional investments in the proven NIH-university partnership to maintain our world-leading position in biomedical science. Second, preserve the current cadre of well-trained junior scientists, including physician-scientists, and maintain a pipeline of young scientists motivated to innovate and improve health. Third, analyze changing health needs and priorities for health science–related investments in order to address ongoing shifts in population demographics and diseases, opportunities for improved prevention or treatment, and the availability of new scientific tools and disciplines. It is in the nation's best interests -- for good health, for a robust economy, and for scientific leadership -- to advocate for strong federal support of biomedical science in America's great research universities. Translation of this science yields enormous benefits to our nation's health and to the economy.