This is a systematic review of 33 articles examining factors that influence subjective cognitive decline in older adults. The review synthesized evidence using the Health Ecological Model and identified four relevant dimensions: personal characteristics, behavioral characteristics, interpersonal networks, and living and working conditions. None of the included studies addressed the policy environment dimension.
The prevalence of subjective cognitive decline varies considerably across assessment tools and geographic locations, particularly in rural areas and among older adults. The review did not report pooled effect sizes, p-values, or confidence intervals, as these were not provided in the source.
Key limitations noted by the authors include the predominant use of self-reported tools, reliance on cross-sectional designs, and geographic concentration of studies, which limit generalizability. The authors acknowledge that factors are reported as influencing subjective cognitive decline but do not establish causation.
Practice relevance is restrained; the authors suggest future research should integrate objective methods, prioritize longitudinal designs, investigate policy influences, and include diverse populations for culturally tailored prevention. The review does not describe a specific study population, intervention, comparator, or adverse events, as these details were not reported.
View Original Abstract ↓
ObjectiveTo systematically review and synthesize the factors influencing subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults based on the Health Ecological Model (HEM), and to provide direction for future research.MethodsRelevant literature on factors influencing SCD in older adults was retrieved from five databases (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, and Web of Science) from database inception to October 18, 2025.ResultsA total of 33 articles were included, comprising 21 Chinese and 12 English articles, with sample sizes ranging from 212 to 74,472 participants. The influencing factors were diverse and complex. According to the HEM, these factors were categorized into four dimensions: personal characteristics, behavioral characteristics, interpersonal networks, and living and working conditions. Notably, none of the 33 studies addressed the fifth dimension—the policy environment—highlighting a significant research gap.ConclusionThe reported prevalence of SCD varies considerably across assessment tools and geographic locations, particularly in rural areas and among older adults. Four dimensions of influencing factors were identified: personal characteristics, behavioral characteristics, interpersonal networks, and living and working conditions. None of the 33 included studies addressed the policy environment dimension, highlighting a significant research gap. Limitations include the predominant use of self-reported tools, reliance on cross-sectional designs, and geographic concentration, limiting generalizability. Future research should integrate objective methods, prioritize longitudinal designs, investigate policy influences, and include diverse populations for culturally tailored prevention.