Skip to main content
Download PDF

Examining the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care: a systematic review

BMC Geriatrics volume 23, Article number: 531 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To address the care needs of older adults, it is important to identify and understand the forms of care support older adults received. This systematic review aims to examine the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care and the factors that influenced their networks.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted by searching six databases from inception to January 31, 2023. The review included primary studies focusing on older adults receiving long-term care, encompassing both informal and formal care. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, validated appraisal tools specifically designed for different study types were utilized. Network analysis was employed to identify the grouping of study concepts, which subsequently formed the foundation for describing themes through narrative synthesis.

Results

We identified 121 studies relating to the formal and informal care of older adults’ networks. A variety of social ties were examined by included studies. The most commonly examined sources of care support were family members (such as children and spouses) and friends. Several factors were consistently reported to influence the provision of informal care, including the intensity of networks, reciprocity, and geographical proximity. In terms of formal care utilization, older age and poor health status were found to be associated with increased use of healthcare services. Additionally, physical limitations and cognitive impairment were identified as factors contributing to decreased social engagement.

Conclusion

This review found that older people were embedded within a diverse network. The findings of this review emphasize the importance of recognizing and incorporating the diversity of social networks in care plans and policies to enhance the effectiveness of interventions and improve the overall well-being of older adults.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

People around the world are living longer, with many countries experiencing rapid growth in the proportion of older adults in the population[1]. In 2021, the World Health Organization estimated that by 2030, one in six people will be aged 60 or older [1]. The shift of the population distribution towards older ages, in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), has raised concerns over whether and how the care and support needs of older adults are going to be met in the future [2].

To address the care and support needs of older adults, it is important to identify and understand their social networks, the forms of support within these, and the wider context in which they live and interact [3, 4]. A ‘social network’ here is defined as a social structure comprising individuals who are tied to each other through interactions and communication [5]. The structural dimensions of a social network include its content (sources of support, which can include both care from formal health and social care services and support from family and friends), size (number of social networks), intensity (strength of relationship), homogeneity (shared interests), duration (relationship duration) and frequency (interactions) [5].

Older adults are particularly susceptible to social isolation and loneliness, which can be attributed to various factors including deteriorating health, changes in the size of their social networks (such as the loss of family members or friends), and social and demographic considerations (e.g. household income, gender or ethnicity) [6,7,8]. On the other hand, social support, active participation, and suitable living arrangements have been suggested to play crucial roles in safeguarding the physical and mental well-being of older adults, as well as fostering active and healthy aging [9,10,11]. To date, existing systematic reviews on the subject of social networks in older adults have primarily focused on factors influencing their social participation in informal support and formal care settings, as well as the subsequent health implications [12,13,14]. However, little attention has been given to comprehensively investigate the role of informal and formal care within older adults’ social networks. A better understanding of older adults’ care networks allows efficient coordination of diverse care resources. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care and the factors that influenced their networks.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted and reported based on the PRISMA 2020 statement (Supplementary Table S1)[15]. The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021266849).

Search strategy

The search strategy for this review was developed in collaboration with the research team and an information specialist (Supplementary Table S2). We systematically searched electronic databases using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception to January 31, 2023. Searches were run independently within each database using medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and subject headings. Relevant keywords and Boolean operators were used to capture the concepts of social networks, care, and older adults. For example, the search terms we used in CINAHL included (network* or social network* or socio-ecolog* or support network* or social interaction* or family network* or friend relationship* or friend network* or local community network* or neighbourhood network*) AND (older adult* or older person* or older people or elderly or later life or senior*) AND (Care or home care or care home or long term care or domiciliary care or carer* or paid care* or unpaid care or formal care or informal care or nursing home or community care or assisted living or retirement village).

Eligibility criteria

We included primary studies (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies) providing that networks of older adults were empirically examined using quantitative and/or qualitative research techniques. The population and condition of interest in this review were older adults receiving care, and studies were included if they stated their focus of interest was older adults or if the mean age of participants was 50 years or older in each study. Choosing 50 years old as the cut-off allowed us to recognise the differences in life expectancy across socio-economic groups and geographical areas, especially later life begins at 50 for people living in some deprived areas [16]. Studies that included both middle-aged and older adults but primarily focused on older adults were considered eligible. Studies with older adults receiving some form of care were included in this review. Informal care here refers to unpaid care or support provided by family members, friends, or neighbours [2]. Formal care refers to services delivered by a social and health care professional, trained carer, government, institution, or wider community [2]. As for context, we included older adults living at home receiving domiciliary care or informal care, or receiving day care, or residents in assisted living facilities or care homes, or receiving long-term care in hospitals. We excluded any study of short-term or acute care in hospitals (less than six months) and non-English articles.

Study selection

All records were imported to Covidence for screening and deduplication. Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened independently by two reviewers within the research team (KM, SM, CP, NA, CW, EK and AM). To ensure consistency in screening, two leading reviewers (KM and SM) played a supervisory role in providing guidelines and instructions to the reviewers regarding the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the screening process. Regular meetings among the reviewers were conducted to address any questions or ambiguities and to ensure a shared understanding of the screening approach. Full texts were retrieved for the remaining studies and independently screened by two reviewers (KM and SM) against the eligibility criteria. Reasons for exclusion were recorded, and any disagreement that arose during the screening process were resolved through discussion or by an arbitrator (BG) when necessary.

Data extraction

Data extraction encompassed all study findings, with a specific focus on information relevant to the objectives of this review. The extracted data included details such as: (1) Author, (2), Publication Year, (3) Title, (4) Country, (5) Sample size, (6) Study purpose, (7) Study design, (8) Participants, (9) Setting, (10) Mean age, (11) Networks, and (11) Study findings. Major themes of each study’s findings were extracted to summarise themes/variables investigated by studies.

Risk of bias assessment

Tools used to appraise the risk of bias of included studies were based on the study design. Qualitative studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Study checklist [17]. Cross-sectional studies were assessed using the critical appraisal tool developed by Downes et al[18]. Cohort studies were assessed using the CASP Cohort Study Checklist [19]. Mixed-methods studies were assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)[20]. The assessment domains included in the appraisal tools for different study designs are shown in Appendix 2. Following study appraisal against all risk of bias domains, each study was subsequently given an overall risk of bias rating: low (if the study fulfilled ≥ 70% of requirements), moderate (30–69%), or high (< 30%).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of individual studies. We used frequency tables to describe categorical data. Measures of mean and standard deviation were used to describe numeric data (e.g. mean age of participants).

Due to the variability of findings across included studies, it was not possible to pool the results using meta-analysis. Various concepts relevant to social networks of older adults and their associations were explored by included studies. The analysis and results are mainly qualitative, but to ensure transparency in the analytical process, network analysis was employed to identify the grouping of study concepts and support the thematic findings [21]. The Louvain optimization algorithm was utilized to detect communities, which helped identify major themes by grouping densely connected nodes or concepts [22]. This approach was chosen because it allowed for a more objective grouping of the multitude of concepts identified in this review and facilitated the understanding of their interconnections [22]. Furthermore, this method enabled the identification of closely connected concepts that formed distinct themes or communities, as well as determining the number of communities or themes within the network of concepts being studied [22] (Supplementary Box S1). The study concepts within each community served as a framework for describing the identified themes using narrative synthesis. While this particular method may not have been previously employed in a review, it offers valuable insights and advantages in terms of understanding the interconnectedness and organization of concepts within a given topic.

The concepts that exerted influence on the social networks of older adults, as identified through both quantitative and qualitative studies, were systematically coded from the original texts. To account for the heterogeneity across the included studies, network analysis and network diagrams were employed to document and visualize the links or relationships (edges) between these concepts (nodes). In the network diagrams, the thickness of the links represented the number of citations related to the relationships between the concepts. Given that the majority of the included studies were cross-sectional and did not allow for causal inferences, undirected networks (without inferring causal directions) were used to summarize and visually present the findings. This approach ensured a comprehensive and visual representation of the relationships between the identified concepts within the social networks of older adults.

The analysis was stratified based on whether the care provided was formal or informal. Concepts associated with formal care services, such as healthcare use, were classified under the formal care group, while other links were categorized under the informal care group. This stratification allowed for the identification of differences in influential concepts and links between formal and informal care provision. To assess the robustness of the findings, a sensitivity analysis was conducted, removing studies with a high risk of bias, to determine if the conclusions remained consistent. By implementing this stratified analysis and sensitivity analysis, the study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the distinct factors and relationships within formal and informal care contexts. Analyses were conducted using RStudio 4.2.1.

Results

19,008 records were identified from the systematic searches, of which 7000 duplicates were removed and 12,008 were retained for title, abstract and full-text screening against eligibility criteria. 11,887 were further excluded, leaving 121 included for the final review. The screening process and rationales for exclusion are reported in Fig. 1. A number of studies were excluded from this review for various reasons. Some of the excluded papers focused on carers’ social networks, interventions of different types, or were conducted in narrow populations of older adults, such as those with dementia. Additionally, some studies did not extensively or meaningfully explore the networks of older adults, while others were relevant to acute settings. Although these studies hold considerable value, they fell outside the scope of this particular review. Here are a few examples [23,24,25,26,27] of the excluded studies, which help illustrate the types of studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Of the 121 studies (Table 1 and Supplementary Table S3), 83 were quantitative (68.6%), 34 were qualitative (28.1%), and four were mixed-methods (3.3%). Studies were published between 1981 and 2022, with over half of included studies (62.8%) published between 2011 and 2021. Eighty-four (89.3%) studies were from high-income countries, and 13 (10.7%) from low- and middle-income countries. Forty-three (35.5%) were from North America, 40 (33.1%) from Europe, 26 (21.5%) from Asia, seven (5.8%) from Australasia and four (3.3%) from South America. The majority of included studies (110 studies, 90.9%) examined networks of the older adult general populations, with small numbers focusing on older adults who were lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) (3 studies, 2.5%), who had low socio-economic status (2 studies, 1.6%) or certain condition or disability (6 studies, 5.0%). The mean age of participants in each study ranged from 57 to 85 (mean across all studies 73.7 years, SD: 6.5).

Table 1 Study characteristics
Full size table

Social networks examined by studies

A wide range of social ties, linking older adults with other individuals and the broader society, were examined across the included studies (Table 2). Around three fourths (72.7%) of the studies examined the support provided to older adults by their family members. Children were most frequently examined as a source of family support (38.0% of studies), followed by spouse (33.9%), other close relatives (22.3%) (e.g. children-in-law, nieces and nephews), and siblings (5.0%). Other sources of support examined included friends (60.3%), neighbours (25.6%), church members (9.9%), co-residents (7.4%), pets (2.5%), health and social care providers (24.8%), and community (e.g. support groups and third sector) (38.8%). Among the social networks investigated, close family members, such as spouses and children, emerged as the most preferred and important source of support for older adults receiving care [28,29,30,31]. In contrast, three studies showed that friends were the primary source of support for LGBT older adults, which can be attributed to the frequently distant relationships they have with their family members [32,33,34]. In terms of types of support, family and friends predominantly offered emotional and financial support to older adults, while support from health and social care professionals tended to be more instrumental and functional in nature [35,36,37,38,39,40].

Table 2 Types of networks examined by studies
Full size table

Compared with older adults living in community, co-residents were more frequently examined as a source of support for older adults living in a care institution (7/16 studies, 43.8%). The support received by older adults, as examined in studies published between 2001 and 2022, exhibited greater diversity compared to studies published between 1981 and 2000. In particular, support from health and social care professionals and community engagement received less attention in studies conducted prior to 2001 (6/18 studies, 33.3%). The majority of studies conducted in LMICs (12/13 studies, 92.3%) primarily focused on family care support, with limited exploration of other sources of support. Few studies from LMICs examined older adults’ engagement with community services (4/13, 30.8%) compared with those from high-income countries (43/108, 39.8%).

Concepts relevant to older adults’ networks and links between concepts reported by studies

Several concepts and links between concepts relevant to older adults’ networks were identified by included studies (Table 3). The definitions of the concepts are documented in Supplementary Table S4 and S5. Of the links identified, thirteen studies reported that reciprocity (meaning mutual exchange of support or sharing) was positively related to the strength of relationships between older adults and their social networks [29, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. Twelve studies found that living with or close by their social networks was linked to increased access to informal care support by older adults [31, 49, 53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]. Eleven studies reported that active social engagement among older adults was associated with increased network diversity [28, 46, 60, 63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]. The creation of social space/opportunities was found by nine studies to be associated with increased social/community engagement of older adults (which was more commonly examined in Western countries, 7/9 studies) [45, 71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. A social space is defined as a recreational space where people can gather and interact. Active engagement in community activities was associated with older adults’ mental wellbeing and connectedness with the society [48, 64, 74, 77,78,79,80,81,82]. Other less frequently-reported links are summarised narratively in the themes section and in Supplementary Table S6.

Table 3 Most common links between concepts identified by included studies
Full size table

When stratified by formal and informal care groups (Fig. 2), healthcare use was linked with the greatest number of concepts in the formal care group where increases in healthcare use were associated with more physical limitations [57, 83,84,85,86], poor health status [76, 86,87,88], old age [84,85,86, 89], small network size [69, 86, 88, 90, 91] and lack of social engagement [86]. In the formal care group, the links most frequently reported were those between social engagement (defined as older adults’ involvement with community services in the formal care group) and network diversity [28, 46, 60, 63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70], and between social space and community engagement [45, 71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. On the other hand, in the informal care group, intensity of networks was linked with the greatest number of concepts (including reciprocity, geographical proximity and social engagement). The strongest single links found were those between reciprocity and network intensity [29, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], between geographical proximity and informal care support [31, 49, 53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62], and between social engagement (defined as social interactions in the informal care group) and mental wellbeing [48, 64, 74, 77,78,79,80,81,82].

Concepts within the three theme groups identified

Three theme groups were identified using the Louvain method (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table S7, and references are in Supplementary Table S6). The first theme revolved around informal care support and the intensity of networks. Our findings indicated that older adults who resided in close proximity to their informal care networks experienced a higher level of informal care support [3, 31, 49, 53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]. Mutual interests/sharing (reciprocity) [29, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52, 71] and maintaining daily contact [29, 40, 50, 53, 57, 92,93,94] were positively associated with the formation of strong bonds within the network between older adults and their support system. For those living far away from their family/friends, communication technology (e.g. telephone, email and mobile apps) provided a means for older adults to connect with their social networks and sustain meaningful relationships [56, 63, 92]. A significant relationship was found between the extent of support received by older adults and improved mental wellbeing [7, 39, 93, 95,96,97,98]. Informal caregivers played a crucial role in determining the type of care received by older adults, particularly for individuals with varying levels of dependency [52, 83, 99], and caregivers living with older adults were more likely to be involved in care decision making than those who were not [100].

On the other hand, network size was not significantly associated with access to more support [39, 43]. The absence of informal care support was found to have a negative association with older adults’ health behaviour, including their tendency to seek treatment, engage in care, and adopt health-promoting behaviours [39, 72, 101]. Stigma was found to create barriers to developing strong social ties with their networks, particularly for older adults with low socio-economic status, cognitive impairment and physical disability [76, 79, 102].

The second theme focused on social engagement and network diversity. Our analysis revealed that active social and community engagement had a positive association with various aspects of older adults’ well-being, including mental well-being, quality of life, and life satisfaction [48, 64, 74, 77,78,79,80,81,82, 103]. Creating social space and opportunities was reported to have a positive effect on older adults’ social engagement [45, 71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. Social engagement was related to lower prevalence of cognitive impairment and incident dementia [80, 102, 104, 105]. In contrast, concerns have been raised in both qualitative and quantitative studies that cognitive impairment and activities of daily living (ADL) limitations created barriers for older adults to engage in community activities [45, 56, 64, 71, 74, 76, 80, 82].

The third theme focused on the utilization of formal care services. Our findings revealed that poor health status, advanced age, and an increased care burden were associated with a higher utilization of formal care services [50, 57, 58, 76, 84,85,86,87,88,89, 94, 100, 106,107,108,109]. In particular, ADL limitations and poor health status were found to be associated with an increase in care burden, which in turn was associated with more frequent healthcare use [30, 99, 100, 107, 108, 110]. Older adults with higher socio-economic status demonstrated a greater likelihood of utilizing care services provided by professionals or private care, in comparison to those with lower socio-economic status [56, 58, 83, 111, 112]. On the other hand, older adults with low socio-economic status were more likely to receive support from neighbourhood, publicly-funded care services and government financial support [40, 49, 54, 58, 83, 108, 111]. Findings regarding the relationship between socio-economic status and the utilization of formal care support were consistently observed across studies conducted in various countries and continents, including Asia, Europe, and America. The significant correlation between a longer duration of relationship and reduced use of healthcare services was reported by one quantitative study [88].

Taken together, as depicted in Fig. 3, the three theme groups exhibited close proximity to one another. Stronger social engagement was found to be associated with increased access to formal care services, attributed to the information and support acquired from community groups [55, 66, 75, 76, 86, 113]. Those receiving formal care continued to rely on informal care support [43, 53]. The extent to which older adults received informal care support was contingent upon the strength of their relationships within their social networks [31, 39, 46, 79].

Risk of bias

Of the 34 qualitative studies (Supplementary Figure S1), 24 were rated as low risk of bias [28, 35, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 64, 71, 73,74,75,76, 79, 92, 99, 107, 114, 115], nine as moderate risk of bias [37, 42, 44, 47, 54, 63, 72, 77, 108] and one as high risk of bias [46]. Of the 83 quantitative studies (Supplementary Figure S2-S3), 18 were rated as low risk of bias [3, 62, 70, 80, 86, 89, 96, 105, 113, 116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125], 56 as moderate risk of bias [7, 30, 31, 33, 34, 39, 51, 57,58,59,60, 66,67,68,69, 81,82,83,84, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100,101,102,103, 109,110,111,112, 126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144] and nine as high risk of bias [36, 50, 65, 71, 85, 91, 106, 145, 146]. In respect to the four mixed-methods studies (Supplementary Figure S4), one had low risk of bias [52] and three had moderate risk of bias [29, 32, 78]. In sensitivity analysis (removal of studies with high risk of bias one by one to examine its influence on the results), no differences in the results were identified.

Discussion

One hundred twenty-one studies were included in this systematic review. Of the studies examining social networks, we found that older adults in care were integrated into diverse networks comprising various groups, including both family and non-family members, which yielded reciprocal benefits. These benefits encompassed improvements in the wellbeing of older adults and a reduction in healthcare utilization. The presence of reciprocity and frequent contact emerged as positive factors associated with stronger relationships between older adults and their social networks. Moreover, in comparison to older adults residing far from their networks, those who cohabited or lived in close proximity to their networks were more likely to receive informal care support. Communication technology served as a valuable means of connecting older adults with their social networks and maintaining relationships, particularly when geographical distance separated them from their family members. Regarding formal care provision, increased healthcare use and decreased social/community engagement among older adults were associated with factors such as limitations in activities of daily living (ADL), advanced age, and poor health status. The lack of social/community engagement was found to have a negative impact on the mental wellbeing of older adults. On the other hand, the creation of social spaces and opportunities showed a positive correlation with older adults’ social engagement. It is noteworthy that the introduction of formal care support did not diminish the important role that informal care networks played in the lives of older adults.

Most prior reviews provided a narrow focus related to older adults’ social networks. The most relevant one was the systematic review by Siette et al. (2021) which synthesised studies that measured the social networks of older adults, specifically focusing on studies that did not have a primary focus on care [133]. Their results showed that the most commonly used dimensions in the measurement of social networks included the number of ties, content of networks (such as family and friends), contact frequency, social participation, social support, social satisfaction, and emotional bond. This review identified additional dimensions, including the intensity of networks, diversity of networks, reciprocity, and duration of relationships (Table S4). Environmental factors (such as proximity/location and opportunities for social events) were reported by two systematic reviews as important factors affecting older adults’ social participation [13, 147]. Similarly, we found that both the neighbourhood environment and the health conditions of older adults significantly influenced their social engagement. However, we also observed that the use of communication technology played a role in mitigating the impact of distance by connecting older adults with their social networks, even if they were living far apart. This finding resonates with four prior systematic reviews which showed that the use of social networking sites and communication technologies were positively associated with enhanced social participation and overall wellbeing among older adults [148,149,150,151]. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the delivery and availability of both informal and formal care, highlighting the potential role of technology in promoting interactions and enhancing network diversity.

The strengths of this review include a transparent and rigorous synthesis of relevant evidence, along with a comprehensive and systematic examination of the concepts influencing the social networks of older adults and their associations. Despite the strengths of this review, there remain some limitations. First, the heterogeneity in study design precluded the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis to pool the quantitative results. However, to compensate for this, we employed network analysis and diagrams to identify patterns and density of the links between concepts as reported by the included studies. The second limitation lies in the fact that we did not weigh in the study design of included studies when synthesizing the quantitative and qualitative results. Given that narrative synthesis was the primary analytical approach employed in this review, we did not deem it advantageous to segregate quantitative findings from qualitative findings, particularly due to the substantial heterogeneity observed in the quantitative data. Instead, we treated all study findings as textual information and quantified the connections between concepts derived from these findings. Consequently, the analysis carried out in this study is exploratory in nature. Third, due to the broad research question addressed in this review, there is a possibility that the search strategy may have missed certain relevant studies.

This study has several implications for research, practice and policy. Firstly, the existing body of research on social networks in older adults often exhibits heterogeneity in terms of the types of networks studied. To address this, future research can adopt a more comprehensive and systematic approach to understanding social networks in older adults. This can involve developing a standardised social network measure to examining various types of networks including informal and formal networks. By exploring the different dimensions of social networks, researchers can gain a more nuanced understanding of the social support systems available to older adults and how they interact. Secondly, social support, engagement, and participation in various networks are crucial factors that can significantly influence an individual’s health and well-being. This highlights the importance of including social support and network engagement as integral components of care plans developed by formal care providers. Additionally, informal networks, such as family, friends, and community groups, should be acknowledged and included as significant contributors to a person’s care and support system. Thirdly, in the context of care planning for older adults, recognizing and incorporating the diversity of social networks is crucial for comprehensively addressing care needs. Care providers should consider assessing various sources of social network support to contextualise care planning. This could include identifying key individuals in their network, evaluating the quality and availability of support and understanding the roles that different network members play in the older adults’ life. Care providers can also consider cultural factors that may influence the composition and dynamics of the social networks. By recognizing and accounting for the diversity of social networks, care plans can be more holistic and person-centred. Fourthly, formal care can play a vital role in helping individuals who live far away from family and friends to make connections with the community. By actively assisting individuals in making connections with the community, formal care providers may help combat social isolation, enhance well-being, and improve the overall quality of life for older adults with immediate family nearby. Finally, Governments should promote and enable collaboration between informal and formal care providers. To encourage such collaborations and ensure caregivers to have the necessary tools and information for high quality care, policies could involve creating information-exchange systems, support networks and educational programmes. These could enable formal and informal caregivers to work together more closely and effectively.

To conclude, this study comprehensively investigated formal and informal care of older adults’ social networks and found that older adults were embedded within a diverse network. Policy and future research ought to prioritize and support the diversity in care. It is crucial to develop care plans that not only cater to the specific circumstances of older adults but also aim to foster strong bonds within their social networks, both within the community and through effective care coordination.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Links between concepts influencing the networks of older adults receiving formal and/or informal care. Footnote: The size of the nodes is proportional to eigenvector centrality value (Supplementary Table S5). The line thickness is proportional to citation frequency (Supplementary Table S6).

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Three major themes identified to influence older adults’ social networks

Footnote: Theme 1 revolves around informal care support and the intensity of networks, which were influenced by factors such as geographical proximity, frequency of contact, reciprocity (mutual interests), the use of communication technology, stigma, and mental wellbeing. Moreover, informal support significantly impacted older adults’ health behaviour and care decision-making. Theme 2 focuses on social engagement, wherein social participation was closely linked to older adults’ network diversity, quality of life and life satisfaction. The creation of social spaces facilitated such engagement, while limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) and cognitive impairment hindered social involvement. Theme 3 centers around the utilization of formal care support. Factors such as older adults’ health status, advanced age, socio-economic status, care burden and policy influenced their use of formal services. Notably, the modularity score, approximately 0.19, indicates that the groups were not distinctly separate from one another but interconnected.

Full size image

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the supplementary appendix.

Abbreviations

LMIC:

low- and middle-income countries

MeSH:

medical subject heading

CASP:

critical appraisal skills programme

MMAT:

mixed-methods appraisal tool

LGBT:

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

ADL:

activities of daily living

References

  1. World Health Organization. Ageing and Health. 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 11]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health#:~:text=At%20this%20time%20the%20share,2050%20to%20reach%20426%20million.

  2. Abdi S, et al. Understanding the care and support needs of older people: a scoping review and categorisation using the WHO international classification of functioning, disability and health framework (ICF). BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(195):1–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. York Cornwell E, Goldman AW. Local ties in the Social Networks of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. 2021;76(4):790–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gardner PJ. Natural neighborhood networks — important social networks in the lives of older adults aging in place. J Aging Stud. 2011;25(3):263–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Weenig MWH. Social Networks, Encyclopedia of Applied psychology, C.D. Spielberger, Editor. 2004, Elsevier: New York. 421–6.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh A, Misra N. Loneliness, depression and sociability in old age. Ind Psychiatry J. 2009;18(1):51–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Domènech-Abella J, et al. Social network size, loneliness, physical functioning and depressive symptoms among older adults: examining reciprocal associations in four waves of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2021;36(10):1541–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dahlberg L, et al. A systematic review of longitudinal risk factors for loneliness in older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2022;26(2):225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oleskiewicz D, Brown CJ, Rook KS. Social networks, health, and well-being, in reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral psychology. Elsevier: California; 2022.

  10. Santini ZI, et al. Formal social participation protects physical health through enhanced mental health: a longitudinal mediation analysis using three consecutive waves of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Soc Sci Med. 2020;251:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nations U. Living Arrangements of Older Persons: A Report on an Expanded International Dataset. New York. p. 1–55.

  12. Piolatto M, et al. The effect of social relationships on cognitive decline in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):278–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Townsend BG, Chen JTH, Wuthrich VM. Barriers and facilitators to Social Participation in older adults: a systematic literature review. Clin Gerontologist. 2021;44(4):359–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lapane KL, et al. Health effects of loneliness and social isolation in older adults living in congregate long term care settings: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2022;102:104728–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Page MJ, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Reviews. 2021;10(89):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  16. MacRae C, et al. Age, sex, and socioeconomic differences in multimorbidity measured in four ways: UK primary care cross-sectional analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2023;1(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Qualitative Checklist. 2018 [cited 2022 March 1]; Available from: https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf.

  18. Downes MJ, et al. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Cohort Study Checklist. 2018 [cited 2022 March 1]; Available from: https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Cohort-Study-Checklist_2018.pdf.

  20. Hong QN, et al. Mixed methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). McGill University Department of Family Medicine; 2018. pp. 1–11.

  21. Csardi G, Nepusz T. Package igraph. 2022 [cited 2022 June 20]; Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/igraph/igraph.pdf.

  22. Smith NR, et al. A guide for choosing community detection algorithms in Social Network Studies: the question Alignment Approach. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(4):597–605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Song M-K, et al. Informal Caregiving Networks of older adults with dementia superimposed on Multimorbidity: a Social Network Analysis Study. Innov Aging. 2023;7(4):1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Field E, et al. The needs of older people in sheltered housing: a comparison of inner city and new town areas. J Hous Elder. 2005;19(2):107–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schutter N, et al. Loneliness, social network size, and mortality in older adults and the role of cortisol. Aging Mental Health. 2021;25(12):2246–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Meunier GF, Beucker B. Social interaction and withdrawn elderly: written notes as encouragement and reinforcement. J Aging Mental Health. 1987;6(4):73–6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Powers BA. The meaning of nursing home friendships. Adv Nurs Sci. 1991;14(2):42–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Loeb SJ, et al. Supporting older adults living with multiple chronic conditions. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(1):8–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stacey-Konnert C, Pynoos J. Friendship and social networks in a Continuing Care Retirement Community. J Appl Gerontol. 1992;11(3):298–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Palo Stoller E, Pugliesi KL. Size and effectiveness of Informal Helping Networks: a panel study of older people in the community. J Health Soc Behav. 1991;32(2):180–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodríguez M, Minguela Recover M, Camacho JA, Ballesta. The importance of the size of the social network and residential proximity in the reception of informal care in the European Union. Eur J Social Work. 2018;21(5):653–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brennan-Ing M, et al. Social Care Networks and older LGBT adults: Challenges for the future. J Homosex. 2014;61(1):21–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Green M. Do the companionship and community networks of older LGBT adults compensate for weaker kinship networks? Qual Ageing Older Adults. 2016;17(1):36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lottmann R, King A. Who can I turn to? Social networks and the housing, care and support preferences of older lesbian and gay people in the UK. Sexualities. 2022;25(1–2):9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cott CA, et al. Helping networks in Community Home Care for the Elderly: types of Team. Can J Nurs Res. 2008;40(1):18–37.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dagnan D, Ruddick L. The Social Networks of older people with learning disabilities living in Staffed Community Based Homes. Br J Dev Disabil. 1997;43(84):43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Powers BA. The roles staff play in the social networks of elderly institutionalized people. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34(12):1335–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rocha SMM, Nogueira ML, Cesario M. Social support and networks in health promotion of older people: a case study in Brazil. Int J Older People Nurs. 2009;4(4):288–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carpenter BD. Family, peer, and Staff Social support in nursing home patients: contributions to Psychological Well-Being. J Appl Gerontol. 2002;21(3):275–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Evans N, et al. Social support and care arrangements of older people living alone in rural Malaysia. Aging Soc. 2018;38(10):2061–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Buckley C, McCarthy G. An exploration of Social Connectedness as Perceived by older adults in a long-term care setting in Ireland. Geriatr Nurs. 2009;30(6):390–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McDonald RM, Brown PJ. Exploration of social support systems for older adults: a preliminary study. Contemp Nurse. 2008;29(2):184–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Powers B. Social networks, social support, and elderly institutionalized people. Adv Nurs Sci. 1988;10(2):40–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Powers BA. Relationships among older women living in a nursing home. J Women Aging. 1996;8(3–4):179–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Roberts TJ. Nursing home resident relationship types: what supports close relationships with peers & staff? J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(23–24):4361–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sta Maria MA, Bonanza AAC, Arceg PAS. Quality of support in the social networks of older filipino church members: an exploratory study. Qual Ageing. 2018;19(1):42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wiersma EC, Pedlar A. The Nature of Relationships in Alternative Dementia Care environments. Can J Aging. 2008;27(1):101–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wiles J, et al. Befriending Services for culturally diverse older people. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2019;62(7):776–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Yoo JA, Zippay A. Social networks among lower income korean elderly immigrants in the U.S. J Aging Stud. 2012;26(3):368–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ehrlich P. Informal Support Networks Meet Health needs of Rural Elderly. J Gerontol Soc Work. 1985;9(1):85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Reed CJ. Social exchanges of older women in assisted living settings, in School of Social Work. University of Kansas ProQuest; 2006. pp. 1–139.

  52. Doekhie K, et al. Elderly patients’ decision-making embedded in the social context: a mixed-method analysis of subjective norms and social support. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):53–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Duner A, Nordstrom M. The roles and functions of the informal support networks of older people who receive formal support: a swedish qualitative study. Aging Soc. 2007;27(1):67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee WK-m. Living arrangements and Informal Support for the Elderly: Alteration to Intergenerational Relationships in Hong Kong. J Intergenerational Relationships. 2004;2(2):27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Liu X, Cook G, Cattan M. Support networks for chinese older immigrants accessing English health and social care services: the concept of Bridge People. Volume 25. Health & Social Care in the Community; 2017. pp. 667–77. 2.

  56. Vos WH, et al. Exploring the impact of social network change: experiences of older adults ageing in place. Health Soc Care Commun. 2019;28(1):116–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Fernandez-Carro C, Vlachantoni A. The role of social networks in using home care by older people across Continental Europe. Volume 27. Health & Social Care in the Community; 2019. pp. 936–52. 4.

  58. Jacobs MT, et al. Diversity in older adults’ care networks: the added value of individual beliefs and social network proximity. J Gerontol. 2018;73(2):326–36.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Schnettler S, WÖHler T. No children in later life, but more and better friends? Substitution mechanisms in the personal and support networks of parents and the childless in Germany. Aging Soc. 2016;36(7):1339–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Tang F, Lee Y. Social Support Networks and Expectations for Aging in Place and moving. Res Aging. 2011;33(4):444–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. York Cornwell E, Goldman AW, Schafer M. Local ties in the social networks of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. 2021;76(4):790–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kim H, et al. Social network characteristics predict loneliness in older adults. Gerontology. 2022;68(3):309–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wenger GC. The formation of social networks: self help, mutual aid, and old people in contemporary Britain. J Aging Stud. 1993;7(1):25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sullivan JL, et al. Social connection and Psychosocial Adjustment among older male veterans who return to the community from VA nursing Homes. Clin Gerontologist. 2021;44(4):450–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Aung MN, et al. A contemporary insight into an age-friendly environment contributing to the Social Network, active ageing and quality of life of Community Resident seniors in Japan. J Aging Environ. 2021;35(2):145–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Doubova SV, Espinosa-Alarcán P, Flores-Hernndez S. Social network types and functional dependency in older adults in Mexico. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):104–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Drennan J, et al. Support networks of older people living in the community. Int J Older People Nurs. 2008;3(4):234–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Park S, Kang JY, Chadiha LA. Social Network types, Health, and Health-Care Use among south korean older adults. Res Aging. 2018;40(2):131–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Suanet B, Broese MI, Van Groenou, Van Tilburg TG. Social network type and informal care use in later life: a comparison of three dutch birth cohorts aged 75–84. Aging Soc. 2019;39(4):749–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Cheng GHL, et al. Transitions between social network profiles and their relation with all-cause mortality among older adults. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ayalon L, Green V. Social ties in the context of the continuing care retirement community. Qual Health Res. 2013;23(3):396–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Barros EJL, Santos SSC, Erdmann AL. Social network of support for stomized seniors according to complexity. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2008;21(4):595–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Canham SL, et al. Contextual factors for Aging Well: creating socially engaging spaces through the use of deliberative dialogues. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):140–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Dupuis-Blanchard S, Neufeld A, Strang VR. The significance of Social Engagement in relocated older adults. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(9):1186–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. McLeod E, et al. For the sake of their health: older service users’ requirements for Social Care to Facilitate Access to Social Networks following Hospital Discharge. Br J Social Work. 2008;38(1):73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Nielson L, Wiles J, Anderson A. Social exclusion and community in an urban retirement village. J Aging Stud. 2019;49:25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Prosser L, Townsend M, Staiger P. Older people’s relationships with companion animals: a pilot study. Nurs Older People. 2008;20(3):29–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Greaves CJ, Farbus L. Effects of creative and social activity on the health and well-being of socially isolated older people: outcomes from a multi-method observational study. J Royal Soc Promotion Health. 2006;126(3):134–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Boneham MA, Sixsmith JA. The voices of older women in a disadvantaged community: issues of health and social capital. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(2):269–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Golden J, Conroy RM, Lawlor BA. Social support network structure in older people: underlying dimensions and association with psychological and physical health. Psychol health Med. 2009;14(3):280–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sintonen S, Pehkonen A. Effect of social networks and well-being on acute care needs. Health Soc Care Commun. 2014;22(1):87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Stipkova M. Marital status, close social network and loneliness of older adults in the Czech Republic. Aging Soc. 2021;41(3):671–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Li H, Edwards D, Morrow-Howell N. Informal Caregiving Networks and use of formal services by Inner-City African American Elderly with Dementia. Families in Society. 2004;85(1):55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Litwin H. Support Network type and patterns of help giving and receiving among older people. J Social Service Res. 1999;24(3–4):83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. McFarland ML. The effect of the provision of in home services on the elderly person’s informal support network, Social Work. 1991, University of Maryland: Baltimore. 1–218.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Oh A, et al. Social support and patterns of institutionalization among older adults: a longitudinal study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(12):2622–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Bear M. Social Networks and Health: impact on returning Home after Entry into Residential Care Homes. Gerontologist. 1990;30(1):30–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Gallo F. Social support networks and the health of elderly persons. Volume 20. National Association of Social Workers; 1984. pp. 13–9. 4.

  89. Bijnsdorp FM, et al. Who provides care in the last year of life?: a description of care networks of community-dwelling older adults in the Netherlands. BMC Palliat Care. 2019;18(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Stafford M, et al. Social connectedness and engagement in preventive health services: an analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. The Lancet Public health. 2018;3(9):e438–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Coe RM, et al. Elderly persons without family support networks and use of health services: a follow-up report on social network relationships. Res Aging. 1985;7(4):617–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Neves BB, et al. Can Digital Technology Enhance Social Connectedness among older adults? A feasibility study. J Appl Gerontol. 2019;38(1):49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Li M, Dong X, Kong D. Social Networks and depressive symptoms among chinese older immigrants: does Quantity, Quality, and composition of Social Networks Matter? Clin Gerontologist. 2021;44(2):181–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Litwin H. The Provision of Informal support by Elderly People Residing in assisted living Facilities. Gerontologist. 1998;38(2):239–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kuiper JS, et al. A longitudinal study of the impact of social network size and loneliness on cognitive performance in depressed older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2020;24(6):889–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Rowe JL, et al. Social support and suicidal ideation in older adults using Home Healthcare Services. Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2006;14(9):758–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Torres Z, Oliver A, Tomás JM. Mapping protective performance of social network types on health and quality of life in older people in european regions. J Aging Health. 2022;1(1):89826432211420–078.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Yoo-Jeong M, Nguyen AL, Waldrop D. Social network size and its relationship to domains of quality-of-life among older persons living with HIV. AIDS Care. 2022;1(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Cohen AL, Bennett CR. Support Network Connectedness in the lives of Community-Dwelling Rural Elders and their families. Marriage & Family Review. 2017;53(6):576–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Jacobs M, et al. Linkages between informal and formal care-givers in home-care networks of frail older adults. Aging Soc. 2016;36(8):1604–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Wu F, Sheng Y. Social support network, social support, self-efficacy, health-promoting behavior and healthy aging among older adults: a pathway analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;85:1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Cohn-Schwartz E, Levinsky M, Litwin H. Social Netw type subsequent Cogn health among older Europeans Int Psychogeriatr. 2021;33(5):495–504.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Golden J, et al. Loneliness, social support networks, mood and wellbeing in community-dwelling elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;24(7):694–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Saito T, et al. Influence of social relationship domains and their combinations on incident dementia: a prospective cohort study. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2018;72(1):7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Hamlin AM, et al. Social Engagement and its links to Cognition Differ Across non-hispanic black and white older adults. Neuropsychology. 2022;36(7):640–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Peek CW, Zsembik BA, Coward RT. The changing caregiving networks of older adults. Res Aging. 1997;19(3):333–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Pleschberger S, Wosko P. From neighbour to carer: an exploratory study on the role of non-kin-carers in end-of-life care at home for older people living alone. Palliat Med. 2017;31(6):559–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Roe B, et al. Elders’ needs and experiences of receiving formal and informal care for their activities of daily living. J Clin Nurs. 2001;10(3):389–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Guadalupe S, Vicente HT. Types of personal social networks of older adults in Portugal. Soc Indic Res. 2022;160(2–3):445–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Tolkacheva N, et al. The impact of informal care-giving networks on adult children’s care-giver burden. Aging Soc. 2011;31(1):34–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Schenk N, et al. Older adults’ networks and public care receipt: do partners and adult children substitute for unskilled public care? Aging Soc. 2014;34(10):1711–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Gu L, Rosenberg MW, Zeng J. Changing caregiving relationships for older home-based chinese people in a transitional stage: Trends, factors and policy implications. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017;70:219–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Rennemark M, Hagberg B. Gender specific associations between social network and health behavior in old age. Aging Ment Health. 1999;3(4):320–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Holcomb JL, et al. A qualitative study examining the social network types of older sexual and gender minority (SGM) women and gender non-binary adults. J Gay Lesbian Social Serv. 2022;34(1):1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Ouden WV-d, et al. The impact of social network change and health decline: a qualitative study on experiences of older adults who are ageing in place. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Aida J, et al. Is social network diversity associated with tooth loss among older japanese adults? PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Berglund H, et al. The impact of socioeconomic conditions, social networks, and health on frail older people’s life satisfaction: a cross-sectional study. Health Psychol Res. 2016;4(1):26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Kuiper JS, et al. A longitudinal study of the impact of social network size and loneliness on cognitive performance in depressed older adults. Aging Mental Health. 2020;24(6):889–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Schmidt T, et al. Social network characteristics as correlates and moderators of older adults’ quality of life—the SHARE study. Eur J Pub Health. 2021;31(3):541–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Xu L, et al. Family relationships, friend network, and worry: a comparison among chinese older adults in immigrant, transnational, and nonmigrant families. J Ethnic Cult Divers Social Work. 2019;28(3):317–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Cohen CI. Social networks and residential status in community-dwelling older adults with schizophrenia: compensation by reconfiguration? Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2022;30(11):1159–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Nie Y, et al. Social networks and cognitive function in older adults: findings from the HAPIEE study. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Rhee TG, Marottoli RA, Monin JK. Diversity of social networks versus quality of social support: which is more protective for health-related quality of life among older adults? Prev Med. 2021;145(1):1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Sung P, et al. Transitions in social network types over time among older adults. Gerontology. 2022;68(7):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Crooks VC, et al. Social network, cognitive function, and dementia incidence among elderly women. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(7):1221–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Saito T, et al. Association between intra-individual changes in social network diversity and global cognition in older adults: does closeness to network members make a difference? J Psychosom Res. 2021;151(1):110658–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Al-Kandari YY. Relationship of strength of social support and frequency of social contact with hypertension and general health status among older adults in the mobile care unit in Kuwait. J Cross-Cult Gerontol. 2011;26(1):175–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Ayalon L. Social network type in the continuing care retirement community. Archives of Gerontology Geriatrics. 2019;84(1):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Brito TRPd, et al. Social network and older people’s functionality: Health, Well-being, and aging (SABE) study evidences. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2019;21(2):1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Coe RM, et al. Complementary and compensatory functions in Social Network Relationships among the Elderly1. Gerontologist. 1984;24(4):396–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Giles LC, et al. Do social networks affect the use of residential aged care among older Australians? BMC Geriatr. 2007;7(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Moorman SM, Boerner K. How social network size and quality affect end-of-life surrogate preferences. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 2018;73(4):704–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Siette J, et al. A comprehensive overview of social network measures for older adults: a systematic review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;97(1):1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Spillman BC, et al. Change over time in caregiving networks for older adults with and without dementia. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. 2020;75(7):1563–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Teerawichitchainan B, Pothisiri W, Long GT. How do living arrangements and intergenerational support matter for psychological health of elderly parents? Evidence from Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand. Social Sci Med. 2015;136:106–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Williams SW, Dilworth-Anderson P. Systems of social support in families who care for dependent african american elders. Gerontologist. 2002;42(2):224–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Zhang Q, Li Z. The impact of internet use on the social networks of the elderly in China-the mediating effect of social participation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Litwin H, Levinsky M. Social networks and mental health change in older adults after the Covid-19 outbreak. Aging Ment Health. 2022;26(5):925–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. McCausland D, et al. The nature and quality of friendship for older adults with an intellectual disability in Ireland. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2021;34(3):763–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Meister LM, Zahodne LB. Associations between social network components and cognitive domains in older adults. Psychol Aging. 2022;37(5):591–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Park NS, et al. The role of social networks on depressive symptoms: a comparison of older koreans in three geographic areas. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2021;92(3):364–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Parkhurst KA, et al. Social network subtypes among socially disconnected older adults at risk for suicide: a latent class analysis. Volume 52. Suicide & life-threatening behavior; 2022. pp. 963–74. 5.

  143. Stephens C, Phillips H. Older People’s Neighborhood perceptions are related to Social and emotional loneliness and mediated by Social Network type. Gerontologist. 2022;62(9):1336–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Xin Y, Li D. Impacts of psychological resources, social network support and community support on social participation of older adults in China: variations by different health-risk groups. Volume 30. Health & Social Care in the Community; 2022. pp. e2340–9. 5.

  145. Baltes MM, et al. On the social ecology of dependence and independence in elderly nursing home residents: a replication and extension. J Gerontol. 1983;38(5):556–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Verbeke A. Lonely last days? Social networks and formal care at the deathbed of urban elderly in Antwerp, Brussels and Ghent, 1797. The History of the Family. 2021;26(1):123–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Levasseur M, et al. Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: results from a scoping study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Baker S, et al. Combatting social isolation and increasing social participation of older adults through the use of technology: a systematic review of existing evidence. Australas J Ageing. 2018;37(3):184–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Nef T, et al. Social networking sites and older users – a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2013;25(7):1041–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Pinto-Bruno ÁC, et al. ICT-based applications to improve social health and social participation in older adults with dementia. A systematic literature review. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(1):58–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Sen K, Prybutok G, Prybutok V. The use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces social isolation in older adults: a systematic review. Ppopulation Health. 2022;17:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Ayalon L, Yahav I. Location, location, location: close ties among older continuing care retirement community residents. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(11):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Guillermo Romero Moreno for his advice on network analysis for this review. We also would like to thank the Legal and General Group for their support of this research. The funder had no role in conduct of the study, interpretation or the decision to submit for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Legal and General. EK is supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator Award and is Director of the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North-East and North Cumbria (NENC) (NIHR200173). NA is also partly funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North-East and North Cumbria (NENC) (NIHR200173). The NIHR have not had any role in the design, implementation, analysis, write-up and/or dissemination of this research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NIHR. Iris Szu-Szu Ho has also been receiving support from the Centre for Doctoral Training in Biomedical AI, generously funded by the UK Research and Innovation. This support is crucial in advancing the progress of the ongoing review.

Funding

This work was supported by Legal and General Group as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programme, providing a research grant to establish the independent Advanced Care Research Centre at University of Edinburgh (there is no grant number).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Bio Cube 1, Edinburgh BioQuarter, 13 Little France Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX, UK

    Iris Szu-Szu Ho, Kris McGill, Stephen Malden, Cara Wilson, Caroline Pearce, Eileen Kaner, Navneet Aujla, Sue Lewis & Bruce Guthrie

  2. School of Health in Social Science, Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 6, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK

    Stephen Malden & Sue Lewis

  3. Institute for Education, Community and Society, University of Edinburgh, Old Moray House, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK

    Cara Wilson

  4. Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh, 74 Lauriston Pl, Edinburgh, EH3 9DF, UK

    Caroline Pearce

  5. Population Health Science Institute, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK

    Eileen Kaner & Navneet Aujla

  6. School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh (Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton St, Newington, Edinburgh, EH8 9AB, UK

    Iris Szu-Szu Ho, John Vines & Valerio Restocchi

  7. School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, 15a George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9LD, UK

    Alan Marshall

  8. 47 Potterow, Bayes Centre, Edinburgh, EH8 9BT, UK

    Iris Szu-Szu Ho

Authors
  1. Iris Szu-Szu Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kris McGill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Malden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cara Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline Pearce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eileen Kaner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Vines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Navneet Aujla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sue Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Valerio Restocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alan Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Bruce Guthrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have made contributions to the review and paper: IS-SH, KM, SM, CW, CP, EK, JV, NA, SL, VR, AM and BG were involved in conception of the work. KM, SM, CW, CP, EK, JV, NA, SL, AM and BG contributed to the design and screening of relevant studies, IS-SH and VR contributed to the analyses, and IS-SH, AM and BG contributed to the interpretation of data for the review. BG and AM contributed to the supervision of this review. All authors contributed to the edits of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris Szu-Szu Ho.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ho, I.SS., McGill, K., Malden, S. et al. Examining the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 23, 531 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04190-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04190-9

Keywords

  • Older adults
  • Social networks
  • Informal care
  • Formal care
  • Healthy aging

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us