ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
The 'active reciprocity' ecosystem: senior cohousing as a determinant of social support and cognitive vitality independent of socioeconomic status.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to explore the relationship between residential context and health-related outcomes. It seeks to analyze the differences in sociodemographic profiles, health status, psychosocial well-being, and cognitive performance between individuals living in self-managed senior collaborative housing (senior cohousing) and those in conventional single-family housing. Methods: Using a cross-sectional comparative design, 171 older people (83 in cohousing, 88 in single-family homes) were assessed using a multidimensional battery that included sociodemographic data, objective and subjective health, functional capacity, psychosocial well-being, and cognitive functioning. Results: The findings revealed significant differences between the two groups. Cohousing residents have a significantly higher socioeconomic status. Although the cohousing group reported more chronic diseases, they showed healthier lifestyles (greater physical activity and lower alcohol consumption) and better performance in verbal episodic memory and semantic fluency. At the psychosocial level, cohousing stood out for greater perceived social support, a positive attitude toward aging, and social engagement. A critical finding is that, after adjusting for educational level, occupation, and income, the lifestyle advantage was no longer significant. However, cohousing remained independently associated with less social loneliness and greater social support. Discussion: Cohousing transforms the relational environment into an 'ecosystem of active reciprocity'. By promoting social connection and self-management, this model improves independence and overall well-being compared to traditional housing models. The results suggest that the main benefit of cohousing lies in its value as a social determinant of relational health, acting independently of the individual's previous socioeconomic status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.