Abstract
Objective Loneliness, when prolonged, is associated with many deleterious effects and has been shown to be highly prevalent in those with a history of stroke, yet the cognitive mechanisms underpinning this phenomenon remain unclear. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the extent to which cognitive factors, with specific focus on processing speed, are associated with loneliness in those with a history of stroke.
Method Utilizing data from the British Cohort Study (BCS), a nationally representative dataset, we conducted secondary data analysis. A total of 7,752 participants completed relevant questions related to health, social interactions, demographics, loneliness, and cognitive assessments. Among them, 47 had experienced a stroke (“stroke,” n = 47), 5,545 reported other health conditions (“ill,” n = 5,545), and 2,857 were deemed healthy (“healthy,” n = 2,857)
Results Consistent with previous research, our findings confirmed a positive correlation between stroke history and heightened loneliness. However, inferential analysis revealed that processing speed, alongside other cognitive factors, had a minimal impact on loneliness, with correlations too small to draw definitive conclusions.
Conclusion This study suggests that cognitive processing speed alone is not a robust predictor of loneliness in stroke survivors. Consequently, when developing interventions to combat loneliness in this population, it is crucial to consider a broader spectrum of factors, such as social engagement, emotional well-being, and interpersonal relationships. This underscores the imperative need for comprehensive assessments to better comprehend the multifaceted nature of loneliness and inform more effective intervention strategies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://aspredicted.org/mu3iy.pdf
Funding Statement
This research was performed as part of an all-Wales Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Doctoral Training Centre PhD studentship (awarded to RR and RC, PhD student: CB).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at: www.ukdataservice.ac.uk
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
To incorporate peer review feedback, which covered clarifications and also unpacking some aspects of the background literature in more detail.
Data Availability
All code and summary data produced are available here: https://osf.io/rxgdy/ Raw data can be accessed here: www.ukdataservice.ac.uk
