Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Social and structural determinants of health (SSDOH) must be measured longitudinally to understand how lived experiences shape trajectories of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). This study evaluated the feasibility of administering an SSDOH survey to cognitively unimpaired older adults, examining response consistency, changes over time, and missing data patterns. A follow-up survey was conducted with participants in the UPenn Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center clinical cohort an average of 1.7 years after the initial survey. The 225-item questionnaire covered domains including education, social networks, and stressors. At follow-up, markers of feasibility included a 60% completion rate (81 of 135 participants), high item completion (>93%), and minimal missing data (<3% missed more than 10% of data). Logistic regression identified gender, social network size, and social readjustment experiences as predictors of nonrandom missingness. Response changes between administrations were likely due to ambiguity in item phrasing, instructions, or changes in participants’ experiences. Overall, repeated administration of the SSDOH survey was feasible. The response rate was reasonable but lower than expected for a volunteer research sample, suggesting multiple modes of completion may increase engagement. Repeated administration also helped identify ambiguous items and methods for improving the validity and reliability of SSDOH measures.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s disease ADRD SSDOH social determinants of health measurement

Introduction

Structural and social determinants of health (SSDOH) are environmental conditions that shape health and wellbeing (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023; World Health Organization [WHO], 2010). SSDOH may explain heterogeneity in patient outcomes and aging trajectories (Adkins-Jackson et al., 2023; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023; Wang et al., 2019), including risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD). Longitudinal studies are needed to further understand how social and structural conditions affect ADRD outcomes (Stites et al., 2022). Accordingly, this study evaluated the feasibility and performance of multiple administrations of a questionnaire designed to capture SSDOH data. The findings will inform how this information can be most effectively collected for use in ADRD research.

Prior research suggests differences in rates of cognitive and functional decline in dementia, such as impairments in memory, attention, and executive functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Cipriani et al., 2020), are influenced by social and structural factors (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021; Hill et al., 2015; Lyu et al., 2014). Given the heterogeneity in dementia progression and its long preclinical period (Melis et al., 2019; Payton et al., 2023), repeated SSDOH assessments could identify critical periods when these factors are most influential.

ADRD also have significant social and economic burdens (Skaria, 2022). Delaying the onset of advanced disease can lower healthcare costs and caregiving demands (Chandler et al., 2024; Nandi et al., 2024). Identifying specific determinants associated with disease outcomes helps develop treatment plans and informs policy efforts addressing the broader impacts of ADRD.

Most SSDOH data are collected cross-sectionally (Whitman et al., 2022), which fail to capture within-person change or support causal inference. Longitudinal data fills this gap and strengthens findings from cross-sectional work (Caruana et al., 2015). However, important considerations remain about longitudinal collection, such as the feasibility of repeatedly asking participants for information that may not change, assessing domains with unreliable measurability, and determining optimal assessment intervals that capture meaningful changes while minimizing burden. These considerations are pertinent to older adults in ADRD Research Centers, where cognitive changes may complicate data collection.

Key SSDOH domains include social identity and support, education, and socioeconomic status and strain (Stites et al., 2023; Streitz et al., 2022). These factors are critical predictors of overall well-being across the lifespan (WHO, n.d.). For example, social support, defined as perceived access to emotional, informational, or instrumental help from others, has been associated with greater cognitive resilience and function (Ma et al., 2024; Röhr et al., 2020; Salinas et al., 2021). Because older adults report the smallest network size (de Bruin et al., 2020), studying changes in social support over time may offer insight into their long-term effects on cognitive resilience and open opportunities for intervention.

Not all SSDOH domains will vary over time among older adults (e.g., demographic data), so participants may be unwilling to repeatedly answer such items. Still, repeated measurement is often necessary to establish the reliability and validity of measures (Ranganathan et al., 2024). Identifying which domains are most affected, and how repeated assessment influences response behavior, is essential for designing effective longitudinal data collection methods that maintain high completion.

It is also unclear how some domains change over time. For example, subjective social status may appear stable in older adults because of fewer opportunities to improve their social standing (Weiss et al., 2022), yet perceptions of age-related loss may influence their status ratings (Blawert & Wurm, 2021). Including such domains in longitudinal assessments could clarify their stability and how they relate to ADRD outcomes.

This study evaluated the feasibility and performance of readministering the UPenn Life Experiences Survey, a multidomain SSDOH measure, in cognitively unimpaired older adults. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive analyses that examined item completion, participant retention, and changes in responses over time. Patterns and predictors of missing data were also examined to provide a more comprehensive assessment. The findings inform best practices for collecting SSDOH data in this sample.

Methods

Design

This study reports results of the initial and follow-up administration of the UPenn Life Experiences Survey, administered online an average of 1.7 years apart. Initial data were collected between December 9, 2021 and March 14, 2022. Follow-up data from December 19, 2022 to May 7, 2024.

Participants

Participants were recruited from the University of Pennsylvania ADRC, including those co-enrolled in the Aging Brain Cohort Dedicated to Diversity study (ABCD2), which enrolls an additional 160 Black adults from the Philadelphia region to increase diversity in research cohorts.

Study Eligibility

Eligible participants were adults aged 65 and older, native English speakers, cognitively unimpaired, and enrolled with a study partner in the above longitudinal studies. Only those who completed the initial survey were invited for follow-up.

Cognitive status was determined by expert consensus conference and review of data from their annual National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) visit. Data included the Uniform Data Set, version 3 (Besser et al., 2018), Clinical Dementia Rating^® scale (Morris, 1993), a neurological exam, and questionnaires assessing emotional, behavioral, and everyday functioning. Participants classified as having unimpaired cognition had intact performance on age and education-normed neuropsychological testing and did not meet criteria for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or AD dementia (McKhann et al., 1984; Petersen et al., 1997; Shiloh, 2006).

Measures

Social Identity

Basic demographics, sex assigned at birth, sexual orientation, gender identity, and language information are described in Supplemental Table A1.

Education

Supplemental Table A1 describes schooling assessment based on completed years of education and whether participants attended a racially segregated school (Barnes et al., 2012). Health literacy was measured with the Calgary Charter on Health Literacy Scale, a five-item scale that assesses comprehension and literacy skills (Pleasant et al., 2018). Responses range from 1 (never) to 4 (always), with higher scores indicating better health literacy.

Occupation and Social and Socioeconomic Positioning

Cognitive demands of work were determined from a free-text question asking about main occupation (National Alzheimers Coordinating Center [NACC], 2023; Pool et al., 2016; additional information in Supplemental Table A1). Socioeconomic Status and Strain were measured with three items (response range: 2–14), where higher scores indicate greater financial strain (Sternthal et al., 2011). Modified MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status asked participants to rank themselves on a 10-interval scale from worst off to best off (Adler et al., 1994). World View rating was assessed by asking participants to compare how they felt about the world during childhood versus now (better, about the same, or worse).

Social Support

The Lubben Social Network Scale includes six questions about family connections and friendships (Lubben et al., 2006). Total scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better social support. Participants marked if they regularly engage in hobbies and activities, including physical, community, mental, and/or other. Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality asked about religious and spiritual practices (The Fetzer Institute and National Institute on Aging Working Group, 1999). Responses ranged from 1 (very religious/spiritual) to 4 (not at all). Two additional 5-point Likert items (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) measured the degree to which religious and spiritual beliefs gave their life a sense of purpose/significance.

Social Stressors and Perceived Stress

The Perceived Stress Scale contains 10-items that asks how often participants felt stressed in the past 30 days (Teresi et al., 2020). Responses range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more frequent stress. The Everyday Discrimination Scale is a nine-item measure that assesses how often participants experience instances of discrimination, from 1 (often) to 4 (never); higher scores indicate more discrimination (Williams, 2016). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale measured exposure to stressful life events in the past year using a 43-item checklist; higher scores indicate more stress (Holmes & Rahe, 1967).

Childhood Experiences

The Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale contains 20 multiple-choice and yes/no items. Scores range from 0 to 7, with higher scores indicating more exposure to abuse (Felitti et al., 1998). Childhood caregiver experiences were assessed with questions on caregiver relationships, education level, occupational status, and general well-being (detailed descriptions found in Supplemental Table A1).

Built Environment/Neighborhood

The Modified Life-Course Sociodemographic Neighborhood Exposures Questionnaire includes 12 items assessing neighborhood quality, sense of belonging, and early-life socioeconomic status, using multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, and a ten-point rating scale; higher scores indicate worsened perception of neighborhood conditions (Mendes de Leon et al., 2009). Participant’s geographic information (upbringing in the United States, current and childhood zip codes, county, and state) is described in Supplemental Table A1.

Statistical Analysis

Internal consistency of multi-item domains, assessed using Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (Cronbach, 1951), are presented in Supplemental Table B1. Completion rates were calculated as the percentage who completed the full survey and retention as the percentage who responded to the follow-up. Descriptive analyses characterize the sample and survey responses, with measures of central tendency and variation reported. Data was reviewed for outliers and erroneous responding. Change estimates involved computing changes within individuals using paired statistical tests. Change over time in key SSDOH domains was examined using mixed-effects models with time as a binary independent variable. Participants’ characteristics of age, race, gender, and education were included as variables that may explain within person differences. Logistic regression was used to test whether Time 1 completion predicted follow-up participation and whether the interval between survey administrations was associated with overall completion. Missing data patterns and predictors were analyzed using Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test and logistic regression models (Rezvan et al., 2022). Missingness was coded as a binary outcome (1 = at least one missing response; 0 = no missing responses), and covariates were selected from each SSDOH domain. Statistical significance was determined using a two-sided .05 alpha level. Analyses were conducted in Stata v18.5 and R v4.4.

Results

Participant Sample

Of the 135 older adults who completed the survey at Time 1, 81 completed it at Time 2 (60% response rate; Table 1). Higher completion of the survey items at Time 1 did not predict participation at Time 2 (OR = 1.00, p = .95). The time between survey completions ranged from 1 year to 2.3 years (M = 1.7 years, SD = 0.3 years), but the average age at both times was 74 years, suggesting that younger participants were more likely to complete the survey at Time 2. No other characteristics had statistically significant differences.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

Characteristic	Time 1 (N = 135)	Time 2 (N = 81)
Demographic
Age, mean (SD)	74 (7.0)	74 (5.2)^a
Sex assigned at birth,^b % (n)
Female	64.0 (80)	63.3 (50)
Male	36.0 (45)	36.7 (29)
Gender identity,^c % (n)
Woman	61.6 (77)	60.3 (47)
Man	36.8 (46)	37.2 (29)
Transgender woman	0 (0)	0 (0)
Transgender man	0 (0)	1.3 (1)
Non-binary/genderqueer	1.6 (2)	1.3 (1)
Years of education, mean (SD)	16.9 (2.6)	16.7 (2.4)
Race & ethnicity, % (n)
White	73.3 (96)	80.2 (65)
Black	27.5 (36)	18.5 (15)
More than one race	2.3 (3)	1.2 (1)
Hispanic or Latino	2.3 (3)	1.2 (1)
Primary relationship,^d % (n)
Spouse/long-term partner	60.0 (75)	69.6 (55)
No partner/single	33.6 (42)	29.1 (23)
Friend/roommate/housemate	6.4 (8)	1.3 (1)
Current employment status,^e % (n)
Retired	80.2 (101)	85.0 (68)
Partly retired	11.9 (15)	7.5 (6)
Full time employed	5.6 (7)	5 (4)
Part time employed	2.4 (3)	2.5 (2)
First language learned, % (n)
English	97.7 (125)	100 (81)
Spanish	1.6 (2)	0 (0)
Other^f	0.8 (1)	0 (0)
Language most often spoken, % (n)
English	97.7 (125)	100 (78)
Spanish	1.6 (2)	0 (0)
Other^f	0.8 (1)	0 (0)
Sexual orientation,^g % (n)
Straight/heterosexual	88.2 (112)	93.8 (75)
Bisexual	4.7 (6)	1.3 (1)
Homosexual, gay, lesbian	3.9 (5)	5 (4)
Asexual	2.4 (3)	0 (0)
Another identity/sexual orientation	0.8 (1)	0 (0)
Clinical^h
Montreal cognitive assessment,ⁱ mean (SD)	26.8 (2.23)	DNR
Clinical dementia rating global score,^j mean (SD)	0.16 (0.53)	DNR
Elevated amyloid,^k % (n)	11.4 (5)	DNR

Note. 44/135 (32.6%) responses. SD = standard deviation; DNR = data not reported.

Mean age increased 1.6 years from Time 1 to Time 2 (p = .002 from paired two-tailed t-test). p = .92 from unpaired two-tailed t-test, suggesting differences in average age reflects younger participants being more likely to complete follow-up survey.

Sex assigned at birth as documented on original birth certificate.

Participant’s self-defined identity as a man, woman, transgender man,

transgender woman, gender non-conforming or non-binary individual.

Primary relationship is preferred over marital status to prioritize living arrangements.

‘Partly retired’ means being retired but working reduced hours in a job. ‘Part time employed’ means working reduced hours but not retired.

‘Other’ not specified.

Participant’s identity in relation to the gender(s) they are sexually attracted to.

Clinical tests administered only at Time 1.

134/135 (99.3%) responses.

126/135 (93.3%) responses.

Estimated from Positron Emission Tomography and cerebrospinal fluid testing.

Sample Characteristics Completion Rates

Completion rates on single-question measures were above 85% (Table 2) and were not statistically different between administrations.

Table 2.

Completion Rates and Summary Coefficients for Sample Characteristics, Scales, and Multiple Item Domains.

Domains	Time 1	Time 2	# Changed responses^a	p-Values	Paired mean difference	Total score range^b
Demographic
Age	115/135	75/81	66/66	.11	1.8*	NA
Sex assigned at birth	125/135	79/81^c	2/74	.78	NA^d	NA
Gender identity	125/135	78/81^c	2/74	.66	NA^d	NA
Race & ethnicity	131/135	81/81	0/81	.26	NA	NA
Primary relationship	125/135	79/81	4/70	.13	NA^e	NA
Current employment status	126/135	80/81	10/71	.78	NA^f	NA
First language learned	128/135	81/81	0/81	.38	NA	NA
Language most often spoken	128/135	78/81	0/78	.40	NA	NA
Sexual orientation	127/135	80/81	6/70	.34	NA^g	NA
Scales & multiple item domains
Education & schooling
Years of education	135/135	81/81	3/81	>.99	0.01	0–20
Attended trade school	5/14^h	8/8	0/8	<.05	NA	NA
Attended segregated school	133/135	79/81	14/79	.63	NAⁱ	NA
Attended legally segregated school	25/26	15/16	2/7	.72	NA^j	NA
Years attending school(s)	22/26	16/16	4/7	.10	0.86	0–12
Calgary Charter on Health Literacy Scale	127/135	80/81	58/75	.10	−0.07	5–20
Life course sociodemographic and neighborhood questionnaire^k	133/135	79/81	75/79	.63	3.53*	2–10
Socioeconomic status and strain
Financial situation^l	125/135	78/81	34/78	.28	0.12	1–5
Economic problems^m	124/135	79/81	10/73	.09	0.70	1–9
MacArthur scale of subjective social status	119/135	79/81	40/66	.02	−0.15	1–10
Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale	135/135	81/81	67/81	>.99	−0.58	14–71
Perceived Stress Scale	119/135	78/81	66/66	<.05	−0.95*	0–40
Everyday Discrimination Scale	133/135	80/81	63/79	>.99	0.09	9–36
Social Readjustment Rating Scale	135/135	81/81	65/81	>.99	−0.05	0–43
Lubben Social Network Scale	135/135	81/81	74/81	>.99	−4.69*	0–5
Hobbiesⁿ	31/135^h	75/81	3/18	<.01	NA^o	NA
Hobby activities	12/28	46/72	5/8	.06	0.125	1–4
Brief multidimensional measure of religiousness/spirituality	120/135	76/81	35/76	.22	−0.49	4–18
World view	120/135	80/81	25/69	.01	0.06	1–3

Note. NA = not applicable.

Denominators represent number of participants who completed survey items at both times.

Total possible score ranges from minimum to maximum.

Two responses excluded due to errors in data collection.

Response changed from male to female and vice versa.

2/4 changed response from living with someone (either spouse or other) to no partner/single.

5/10 changed response from partly retired to retired.

4/6 changed response from bisexual to lesbian/gay.

Item added based on pilot feedback. Late addition resulted in lower completion rate.

6/14 changed response from no to yes; 4/14 yes to no; 2/14 I don’t know to no; 2/14 I don’t know to yes and vice versa.

1/2 changed response from yes to no; 1/2 I don’t know to no.

NACC Uniform Data Set SSDOH item.

Two-item scale (response range: 1–5); higher scores indicate less financial satisfaction and greater difficulty in paying monthly bills.

Select-all-that-apply item, consisting of nine options; higher scores indicate more economic problems.

Yes/no question, yes indicating they engage in hobbies/activities, no indicating they do not. Answering yes prompts further questions to elaborate on hobbies/activities.

2/3 changed response from no to yes.

p < .05.

Multi-Item Scales and Domains

For multi-item scales and domains, completion was defined as answering at least 80% of items. Completion rates improved over time across all domains (Table 2), with statistically significant increases for the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status, Perceived Stress Scale, Hobbies, and World View (all p < .05).

To assess response stability, we evaluated how many participants changed responses on a scale between surveys and the paired mean differences in scale scores. Scores for the Socioeconomic Status and Strain domain remained stable over time for both Financial Situation and Economic Problem items. Less than 50% changed responses, with average score differences of 0.12 and 0.70 points, respectively (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Histogram of scores for socioeconomic status and strain.

The Perceived Stress Scale showed the greatest percentage of changes (100%), with an average score difference of −0.95 points (p < .05), indicating lower perceived stress.

The average score on the Life Course Sociodemographic and Neighborhood Questionnaire increased over time from 4.2 to 7.7 points, with a paired mean difference of 3.53 (p < .05), indicating a worsened perception of socioeconomic and neighborhood conditions.

Scores on the Lubben Social Network Scale decreased overtime from an average of 22.0 to 17.4 points (mean change = −4.69, p < .05), suggesting lower perceived social support. Each item-level response also decreased (all p < .05, Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Histogram of scores for Lubben Social Network Scale.

In separate mixed-effects models that adjusted for age, race, gender, and education, study time showed a significant effect on the Lubben Social Network Scale, Perceived Stress Scale, and Life Course Sociodemographic and Neighborhood Questionnaire scores (Estimates = −6.03, −0.90, and 3.60, respectively; all p < .001). Moreover, item-level analyses showed that in some cases, specific items appeared to be driving these differences (Supplemental Appendix C, Figures C1–C3). In a follow-up analysis of the PSS, for example, we found that some items contributed to this change while others remained more stable. Those items that were more inclined to change asked about controlling issues in contrast to other items that assessed feelings or perceptions of events (Supplemental Figure C1).

Participant Caregiver and Geographic Data

Childhood caregiver and geographic history questions had consistently high completion rates at both times, with rates above 79% and 88%, respectively. Detailed completion rates and response changes are presented in Supplemental Table D1.

Missing Data

After excluding questions not applicable to all participants (e.g., secondary caregiver questions), approximately 8.9% of participants at Time 1 were missing more than 10% of data, compared to 2.5% at Time 2. Little’s MCAR test revealed a significant result at both times, suggesting the data are not missing completely at random (Time 1: χ² (380) = 441, p = .017; Time 2: χ² (212) = 249, p = .042, data not tabled).

To explore sources of systematic missingness, multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that at both times, males had lower odds of missing data, with stronger effects observed at Time 2 (OR = 0.06, 95% CI [0.004, 0.44], p < .05; Supplemental Table E1). Larger social networks (OR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.75, 0.98]) and more experiences of social readjustment (OR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.46, 0.92]) also indicated reduced odds of missing data. Odds ratios for each variable are presented in Supplemental Table E1.

To assess the robustness of the logistic regression analysis, Little’s MCAR test was repeated after excluding the predictor variables. The resulting test was non-significant (Time 1: χ² (218) = 246, p = .094; Time 2: χ² (173) = 197, p = .099; data not tabled), suggesting the data to be MCAR. This strengthens the interpretation that the excluded variables contributed to the initial patterns of missingness.

Discussion

Within a cohort of cognitively unimpaired older adults, we found it feasible to repeatedly administer a multidomain SSDOH survey. Feasibility was evaluated based on participant retention, completion, response changes, and missing data patterns. Retention rate was reasonable, though lower than expected, completion across domains remained high, and missing data was minimal. These findings help advance our ability to capture SSDOH information in ADRD research, allowing for improved understanding of their influence on clinical outcomes.

Contrary to the frequent survey request hypothesis (Eggleston, 2024), which states that the repeated survey exposure may overburden participants and reduce completion, we found that completion rates improved. One possible reason for this is that participants were ADRD research volunteers, so providing SSDOH information was personally meaningful; thus, increasing the survey’s salience and mitigating survey fatigue (Porter et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2022). Familiarity from the first survey may have also increased comfort in providing sensitive information, helping to improve completion (Kartsounidou et al., 2024).

Analyzing missingness patterns helped identify potential sources of bias and inform strategies for improving completion in future administrations. Although participants are offered alternative options for completion (e.g., paper surveys), are given reminder emails, and are compensated for completion of the survey, our results suggest that these efforts for retaining completion across time points could be improved. By anticipating which participants need additional support, targeted retention strategies like reducing barriers by offering assistance with transportation can be utilized (Teague et al., 2018).

We also found that asking participants to repeatedly respond to stable questions (e.g., life history questions) did not reduce engagement. Given the high test-retest reliability in similar populations (Streitz et al., 2022), continuing to collect such data will be helpful in flagging response inconsistences or meaningful changes. For instance, few changes are expected in childhood caregiver information, so discrepancies over time could signal data quality issues that warrant follow-up. Conversely, if stable factors like gender identity shift, then greater attention can be directed toward any associations with outcomes that might be overlooked (Ocasio & Isabel Fernández, 2024).

While most domains remained stable over time, the 1.7-year interval between administrations may be too brief to capture some changes. For instance, while no notable changes were seen in religiousness/spirituality, a 10-year longitudinal study found these factors changed across adulthood, with engagement peaking in the 70s (Nelson et al., 2024). Such changes are important, as shifts in religiousness/spirituality have been associated with well-being (Joiner et al., 2022). These studies highlight the need for continued administrations beyond our single follow-up administration.

Some domains, such as perceived stress, showed statistically significant change over time. The mixed-effect analysis suggests that some of these differences may reflect measurement artifacts, indicating that additional clarification or guidance may be needed during completion. In a follow-up analysis, we found that some items contributed to this change while others remained more stable. Those items that were more inclined to change seemed to relate to factors that could be more likely to change from day to day. The finding highlights the importance of identifying an optimal interval between administrations that capture meaningful changes without increasing participant burden. While existing literature offers some guidance on this concern (Feely et al., 2020; Pullenayegum et al., 2021), they focus on one specific domain, whereas our SSDOH questionnaire adds complexity due to its multidomain component. Addressing this requires optimizing schedules for each SSDOH domain. For example, religiousness/spirituality may warrant longer intervals, whereas perceived stress may require more frequent assessment. This approach would streamline the survey and minimize burden for participants and researchers.

We administered the full version of the survey at both study time points in order to facilitate the goal of this study, which was to evaluate repeated administration of the measures. Our findings showed that some measures did not change between administrations. Ongoing administration of measures that generate limited new information could be an inappropriate burden to research participants. In our research cohort, we have restricted subsequent follow-up administrations of the survey to measures that vary annually. We have also developed a plan to modify the survey – adding, removing, or adapting – measures based on what we learn from analyzing them in order to ensure items posed to participants generate new information.

Our study has important limitations to note. The generalizability of our findings is limited by the characteristics of the sample. Participants were predominantly white, more educated, and limited to cognitively unimpaired and healthy older adults. Our findings are based on participants who have voluntarily enrolled in a research cohort, which is unlikely to reflect the wide breadth of diversity in the US older adult population. In addition, the average time between administrations was 1.7 years, which is a relatively short observation interval for some aspects of SSDOH that may vary over longer intervals, such as religiousness/spirituality or health literacy. Resultantly, it remains unclear whether repeated administration of this questionnaire is feasible for detecting meaningful change in these domains. Moreover, our findings are limited by the specific SSDOH measures assessed and thus cannot generalize to other domains. Larger, more diverse samples with repeated administrations are necessary to support the feasibility of repeatedly capturing SSDOH information.

By addressing practical concerns of longitudinal SSDOH data collection, this study contributes to calls for universally implementing SSDOH assessment within a life course framework (Adkins-Jackson et al., 2023; Stites et al., 2022). Integrating these multidomain questionnaires into ADRD contexts will advance understanding of the social and structural influences on disease risk and progression.

Conclusion

It is feasible to repeatedly administer a multidomain SSDOH measure in cognitively unimpaired older adults. The readministration was well-received by participants, evidenced by improved completion rates, minimal missing data, and reliable responses across domains. Identifying predictors of missingness provides insight into future efforts to boost participant engagement. This work supports the integration of repeated SSDOH assessments, advancing understanding of how these determinants influence health outcomes in ADRD populations.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ggm-10.1177_30495334261430788 – Supplemental material for Repeated Administration of Social and Structural Determinants of Health (SSDOH) Questions in an Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center: The Aging Brain Study (ABC) Life Experience Survey

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ggm-10.1177_30495334261430788 for Repeated Administration of Social and Structural Determinants of Health (SSDOH) Questions in an Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center: The Aging Brain Study (ABC) Life Experience Survey by Shana D. Stites, Daniel S. Lee, Carolyn Kuz, Valerie Humphreys, Marissa L. Streitz, Sharon X. Xie, Jason Flatt, Crystal M. Glover and Dawn Mechanic-Hamilton in Sage Open Aging

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the research participations for their contributions to this project.

ORCID iD

Daniel S. Lee

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania IRB.

Consent to Participate

Participants provided written informed consent to participate.

Consent for Publication

Participants provided written informed consent to having their data analyzed and published in aggregate.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Aging (NIA P30AG072979-05, P30AG012836-25-S2, NIA P30AG010124, K23AG065442, P01AG03991, P01AG026276, P30AG066444, R01AG083177, R24AG066599, K01AG056669, K23AG065499, 1RF1NS143766-01, R01AG095017, P30AG066519-06, RF1AG083177); and by the Alzheimer’s Association (AARF-17-528934, AARGD-22-929144). The Aging Brain Cohort Dedicated to Diversity (ABCD2) Study is supported by a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Health (2019NF4100087335).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request for purposes of replication by contacting the corresponding author.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adkins-Jackson

P. B.

George

K. M.

Besser

L. M.

Hyun

Lamar

Hill-Jarrett

T. G.

Bubu

O. M.

Flatt

J. D.

Heyn

P. C.

Cicero

E. C.

Zarina Kraal

Pushpalata Zanwar

Peterson

Kim

Turner

R. W.

Viswanathan

Kulick

E. R.

Zuelsdorff

Stites

S. D.

. . . Babulal

(2023). The structural and social determinants of Alzheimer’s disease related dementias. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, 19(7), 3171–3185. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13027

Adler

N. E.

Boyce

Chesney

M. A.

Cohen

Folkman

Kahn

R. L.

Syme

S. L.

(1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.1.15

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Author.

Barnes

L. L.

Shah

R. C.

Aggarwal

N. T.

Bennett

D. A.

Schneider

J. A.

(2012). The Minority Aging Research Study: Ongoing efforts to obtain brain donation in African Americans without dementia. Current Alzheimer Research, 9(6), 734–745. https://doi.org/10.2174/156720512801322627

Besser

Kukull

Knopman

D. S.

Chui

Galasko

Weintraub

Jicha

Carlsson

Burns

Quinn

Sweet

R. A.

Rascovsky

Teylan

Beekly

Thomas

Bollenbeck

Monsell

Mock

Zhou

X. H.

. . . Morris

J. C.

(2018). Version 3 of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center’s Uniform Data Set. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 32(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000279

Blawert

Wurm

(2021). Shifting self-perceptions of ageing: Differential effects of value priorities on self-perceptions of ageing beyond age stereotypes. European Journal of Ageing, 18(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-020-00578-3

Caruana

E. J.

Roman

Hernández-Sánchez

Solli

(2015). Longitudinal studies. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 7(11), E537–E540. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.10.63

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Social Determinants of Health. NCHHSTP. CDC. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/socialdeterminants/index.html

Chandler

J. M.

Doty

E. G.

Johnston

J. A.

(2024). Potential impact of slowing disease progression in early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease on patient quality of life, caregiver time, and total societal costs: Estimates based on findings from GERAS-US Study. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 100(2), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-231166

10.

Cipriani

Danti

Picchi

Nuti

Fiorino

M. D.

(2020). Daily functioning and dementia. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 14(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-57642020dn14-020001

11.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555

12.

de Bruin

W. B.

Parker

A. M.

Strough

(2020). Age differences in reported social networks and well-being. Psychology and Aging, 35(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000415

13.

Eggleston

(2024). Frequent survey requests and declining response rates: Evidence from the 2020 Census and Household Surveys. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 12(5), 1138–1156. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smae022

14.

Feely

Wall-Wieler

Roos

L. L.

Lix

L. M.

(2020). Effect of study duration and outcome measurement frequency on estimates of change for longitudinal cohort studies in routinely-collected administrative data. International Journal of Population Data Science, 5(1), 1150. https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1150

15.

Felitti

V. J.

Anda

R. F.

Nordenberg

Williamson

D. F.

Spitz

A. M.

Edwards

Koss

M. P.

Marks

J. S.

(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

16.

Hill

C. V.

Pérez-Stable

E. J.

Anderson

N. A.

Bernard

M. A.

(2015). The National Institute on aging health disparities research framework. Ethnicity & Disease, 25(3), 245. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.25.3.245

17.

Holmes

T. H.

Rahe

R. H.

(1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4

18.

Joiner

R. J.

Martinez

B. S.

Nelson

N. A.

Bergeman

C. S.

(2022). Within-person changes in religiosity, control beliefs, and subjective well-being across middle and late adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 37(7), 848–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000713

19.

Kartsounidou

Kluge

Silber

Gummer

(2024). Survey experience and its positive impact on response behavior in longitudinal surveys: Evidence from the probability-based GESIS Panel. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 27(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2163104

20.

Lubben

Blozik

Gillmann

Iliffe

von Renteln Kruse

Beck

J. C.

Stuck

A. E.

(2006). Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben Social Network scale among three European Community-dwelling older adult populations. Gerontologist, 46(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/46.4.503

21.

Lyu

Lee

C. M.

Dugan

(2014). Risk factors related to cognitive functioning: A cross-national comparison of U.S. and Korean Older Adults. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 79(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.79.1.d

22.

Liao

(2024). Social support and cognitive activity and their associations with incident cognitive impairment in cognitively normal older adults. BMC Geriatrics, 24(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04655-5

23.

McKhann

Drachman

Folstein

Katzman

Price

Stadlan

E. M.

(1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 34(7), 939–944. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.34.7.939

24.

Melis

R. J. F.

Haaksma

M. L.

Muniz-Terrera

(2019). Understanding and predicting the longitudinal course of dementia. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 32(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000482

25.

Mendes de Leon

C. F.

Cagney

K. A.

Bienias

J. L.

Barnes

L. L.

Skarupski

K. A.

Scherr

P. A.

Evans

D. A.

(2009). Neighborhood Social Cohesion and disorder in relation to walking in community-dwelling older adults: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Aging and Health, 21(1), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264308328650

26.

Morris

J. C.

(1993). The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology, 43(11), 2412–2414. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.43.11.2412-a

27.

Nandi

Counts

Bröker

Malik

Chen

Han

Klusty

Seligman

Tortorice

Vigo

Bloom

D. E.

(2024). Cost of care for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in the United States: 2016 to 2060. Npj Aging, 10(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41514-024-00136-6

28.

National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. (2023). NACC Updates on Uniform Data Set v4. Author. Retrieved August 29, 2023. https://naccdata.org/nacc-collaborations/uds4-updates.

29.

Nelson

N. A.

Joiner

R. J.

Martinez

B. S.

Bergeman

C. S.

(2024). Religiosity and spirituality development: An Accelerated Longitudinal Design. Gerontologist, 64(10), gnae097. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnae097

30.

Ocasio

M. A.

Isabel Fernández

(2024). The association between gender identity fluidity and health outcomes in transgender and gender diverse people in New Orleans and Los Angeles, USA. Preventive Medicine Reports, 42, 102735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102735

31.

Payton

N. M.

Marseglia

Grande

Fratiglioni

Kivipelto

Bäckman

Laukka

E. J.

(2023). Trajectories of cognitive decline and dementia development: A 12-year longitudinal study. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 19(3), 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12704

32.

Petersen

R. C.

Smith

G. E.

Waring

S. C.

Ivnik

R. J.

Kokmen

Tangelos

E. G.

(1997). Aging, memory, and mild cognitive impairment. International Psychogeriatrics, 9 Suppl 1, 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610297004717

33.

Pleasant

Maish

O’Leary

Carmona

R. H.

(2018). A theory-based self-report measure of health literacy: The Calgary Charter on Health Literacy scale. Methodological Innovations, 11(3), 2059799118814394. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799118814394

34.

Pool

L. R.

Weuve

Wilson

R. S.

Bültmann

Evans

D. A.

Mendes

Leon

C. F.

(2016). Occupational cognitive requirements and late-life cognitive aging. Neurology, 86(15), 1386–1392. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002569

35.

Porter

S. R.

Whitcomb

M. E.

Weitzer

W. H.

(2004). Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(121), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.101

36.

Pullenayegum

E. M.

Lim

Levin

Feldman

B. M.

(2021). Choosing the frequency of follow-up in longitudinal studies: Is more necessarily better? Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 2(2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320975260

37.

Ranganathan

Caduff

Frampton

C. M. A.

(2024). Designing and validating a research questionnaire - Part 2. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 15(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_318_23

38.

Rezvan

P. H.

Comulada

W. S.

Fernández

M. I.

Belin

T. R.

(2022). Assessing alternative imputation strategies for infrequently missing items on multi-item scales. Communications in Statistics Case Studies Data Analysis and Applications, 8(4), 682–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2022.2115430

39.

Röhr

Löbner

Gühne

Heser

Kleineidam

Pentzek

Fuchs

Eisele

Kaduszkiewicz

König

H.-H.

Brettschneider

Wiese

Mamone

Weyerer

Werle

Bickel

Weeg

Maier

Scherer

. . . Riedel-Heller

S. G.

(2020). Changes in social network size are associated with cognitive changes in the oldest-old. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00330

40.

Salinas

O’Donnell

Kojis

D. J.

Pase

M. P.

DeCarli

Rentz

D. M.

Berkman

L. F.

Beiser

Seshadri

(2021). Association of Social Support with brain volume and cognition. JAMA Network Open, 4(8), e2121122. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21122

41.

Shiloh

(2006). Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: A theoretical review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(5), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9044-5

42.

Skaria

A. P.

(2022). The economic and societal burden of Alzheimer disease: Managed care considerations. American Journal of Managed Care, 28(10 Suppl), S188–S196. https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2022.89236

43.

Sternthal

M. J.

Slopen

Williams

D. R.

(2011). Racial disparities in health: How much does stress really matter? Du Bois Review Social Science Research on Race, 8(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X11000087

44.

Stites

S. D.

Midgett

Mechanic-Hamilton

Zuelsdorff

Glover

C. M.

Marquez

D. X.

Balls-Berry

J. E.

Streitz

M. L.

Babulal

Trani

J.-F.

Henderson

J. N.

Barnes

L. L.

Karlawish

Wolk

D. A.

(2022). Establishing a framework for gathering structural and Social Determinants of health in Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers. Gerontologist, 62(5), 694–703. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab182

45.

Stites

S. D.

Midgett

Visco

Mechanic-Hamilton

(2023). Pilot study of social and structural determinants of health (SSDOH) measures in the UPENN Alzheimer’s disease research center. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 19(S8), e066895. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.066895

46.

Streitz

M. L.

Denny

Xiong

McCue

Stites

S. D.

Midgett

Mechanic-Hamilton

Moulder

K. L.

Morris

J. C.

Balls-Berry

(2022). Development of a comprehensive battery to collect social and structural determinants of Health (SSDOH) in cognitively normal or very mildly impaired persons. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 36(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000505

47.

Teague

Youssef

G. J.

Macdonald

J. A.

Sciberras

Shatte

Fuller-Tyszkiewicz

Greenwood

McIntosh

Olsson

C. A.

Hutchinson

(2018). Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0586-7

48.

Teresi

J. A.

Ocepek-Welikson

Ramirez

Kleinman

Ornstein

Siu

Luchsinger

(2020). Evaluation of the measurement properties of the perceived stress scale (PSS) in Hispanic caregivers to patients with Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. International Psychogeriatrics, 32(9), 1073–1084. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220000502

49.

The Fetzer Institute and National Institute on Aging Working Group. (1999). Multidimensional Measurement of religiousness/spirituality for use in Health Research. Fetzer Institute.

50.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Social Determinants of Health. Healthy People 2030. Retrieved August 29, 2023, from https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health

51.

Wang

X.-J.

J.-Q.

Cao

X.-P.

Tan

J.-T.

(2019). Early-life risk factors for dementia and cognitive impairment in later life: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 67(1), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-180856

52.

Weiss

Greve

Kunzmann

(2022). Responses to social inequality across the life span: The role of social status and upward mobility beliefs. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254221089615

53.

Whitman

De Lew

Chappel

Aysola

Zuckerman

Sommers

B. D.

(2022). Addressing social determinants of health: Examples of successful evidence-based strategies and current federal efforts. Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation: Office of Health Policy. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/sdoh-evidence-review

54.

Williams

D. R.

(2016). Everyday discrimination scale. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://scholar.harvard.edu/davidrwilliams/node/32397

55.

World Health Organization. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: Debates. Policy & Practice, Case Studies.

56.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Social determinants of health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1

57.

M.-J.

Zhao

Fils-Aime

(2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206