Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-rv6c5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T10:41:19.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2026

Min Fang
Affiliation:
Geriatrics Department First Ward, Hangzhou Geriatric Hospital, Hangzhou, China
Yaqin Wang
Affiliation:
Geriatrics Department First Ward, Hangzhou Geriatric Hospital, Hangzhou, China
Hongzhu Zhang
Affiliation:
Geriatrics Department First Ward, Hangzhou Geriatric Hospital, Hangzhou, China
Dan Chen*
Affiliation:
Geriatrics Department First Ward, Hangzhou Geriatric Hospital, Hangzhou, China
*
Corresponding author: Dan Chen; Email: ytcdyt@163.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cognitive leisure activities (CLAs) and pain may affect depressive symptoms in middle-aged and older people in China. This study aimed to clarify the association between CLAs and depressive symptoms in middle-aged and older groups, and further analyze the mediating function of pain in this relationship. Data were obtained from the CHARLS from 2011 to 2018. The association between the CLA Score (CLAS) and depressive symptoms was assessed using multilevel logistic regression to examine regional differences. Subgroup analysis was performed by age and sex. The mediating effect of pain was tested. High CLAS (Group 4) was significantly related to a reduced risk of depressive symptoms (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44–0.76, P < 0.0001). Results were consistent across eastern and western regions. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant interaction associations. Pain accounted for 10.0% of the mediating effect. Higher CLAS is notably related to a reduced risk of depressive symptoms. This finding provides new directions for interventions targeting depression symptoms in middle-aged and older adults.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press or the rights holder(s) must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Figure 1

Table 1. Baseline characteristics

Figure 2

Table 2. Logistic regression analysis of the association between CLAS and depression

Figure 3

Table 3. Logistic regression model for the association between CLAS and depression across regions

Figure 4

Figure 2. Mediation analysis. In the diagram of mediating analysis, path C represents the total effect, while path C’ represents the direct effect. The indirect effect is estimated as the product of path A and path B (path A*B). The mediation proportion is calculated as [indirect effect/(indirect effect + direct effect)] × 100%.

Supplementary material: File

Fang et al. supplementary material

Fang et al. supplementary material
Download Fang et al. supplementary material(File)
File 151 KB

Author comment: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit our original research article, “Association Between Cognitive Leisure Activities and Depression in Chinese Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A CHARLS Cohort Study from 2011 to 2018,” for consideration as a Research Article in your journal. This longitudinal cohort study of 4,136 middle-aged and older Chinese adults demonstrates that high engagement in cognitive leisure activities (e.g., games, internet use) significantly reduces depression risk by 42%, with pain mediating 10.0% of this protective effect. Notably, subgroup analyses revealed heightened benefits for adults over 60 and residents of Eastern and Western China, highlighting important demographic and geographic considerations for public health interventions.

Our findings provide actionable insights for developing region-specific strategies to mitigate depression through accessible leisure activities—an urgent priority for rapidly aging societies like China. Beyond documenting these associations, our mediation analysis advances mechanistic understanding of how cognitive leisure activities confer mental health benefits, addressing a critical gap in longitudinal geriatric mental health research. The identification of pain as a mediating pathway represents a significant contribution to the field, offering new targets for clinical and community-based approaches.

We confirm that this manuscript is original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere. All authors declare no conflicts of interest and have approved this submission in accordance with your policies. We appreciate your consideration and welcome reviewer feedback to further strengthen this work.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely,

Dan Chen

Review: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This study uses CHARLS data to examine the association between cognitive leisure activities and depressive symptoms among middle-aged and older adults in China. The research topic is important and the dataset is strong, and the manuscript has the potential to make a useful contribution. However, the current version has substantial conceptual, methodological, and interpretational issues that need careful revision. Key constructs (such as CLA and depression) are not clearly defined or theoretically justified, several major confounders are not controlled, parts of the Results are overstated relative to the data, and the Discussion includes causal and speculative interpretations that go beyond the evidence. The mediation analysis is also insufficiently reported. A major revision is needed. The authors are encouraged to improve conceptual clarity, strengthen methodological reporting, and align interpretations more closely with the actual empirical findings. Please see the detailed comments below.

Introduction

1. The Introduction begins by stating that China has the largest population in the world. This statement is outdated, as India surpassed China in population size in 2023. The authors should revise this basic demographic fact.

2. The cited prevalence of major depression among older adults (5.37% to 56%) is highly implausible and lacks epidemiological validity. A range this wide suggests incomparable measurement methods or mixed populations. The authors need to clarify whether these figures refer to depressive symptoms measured by screening tools rather than clinically diagnosed major depression.

3. The conceptualization of cognitive leisure activities (CLA) is not well aligned with the standard definitions in the literature, including the review by Iizuka et al. (2019), which the authors themselves cite. In that review, CLA are defined as leisure activities undertaken for enjoyment and requiring cognitive engagement or mental response (e.g., reading, puzzles, board games). In contrast, the present study includes activities such as watching television, which vary widely in cognitive demand and do not consistently require mental engagement. This heterogeneity raises concerns about construct validity. A clearer theoretical justification or refinement of the activity categories is needed. The following references might be helpful:

a. Hallgren, M., Owen, N., Stubbs, B., Zeebari, Z., Vancampfort, D., Schuch, F., ... & Lagerros, Y. T. (2018). Passive and mentally-active sedentary behaviors and incident major depressive disorder: a 13-year cohort study. Journal of affective disorders, 241, 579-585.

b. Zou, L., Herold, F., Cheval, B., Wheeler, M. J., Pindus, D. M., Erickson, K. I., ... & Owen, N. (2024). Sedentary behavior and lifespan brain health. Trends in cognitive sciences, 28(4), 369-382.

c. Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., Yu, Q., Li, J., Zou, L., Mavilidi, M. F., ... & Herold, F. (2025). A neurobiological taxonomy of sedentary behavior for brain health. Trends in Neurosciences.

4. The main research question is not clearly and explicitly formulated. The Introduction intermittently mentions: (a) the association between CLA and depressive symptoms, (b) regional differences, and (c) the mediating role of pain. These aims appear side-by-side and unprioritized, rather than embedded in a single logical framework. The authors should clearly state one main question (e.g. the longitudinal association between CLA and depression) and then position regional heterogeneity and pain mediation as secondary, hypothesis-driven questions, instead of presenting them as loosely related add-ons.

5. The transition to pain as a mediator is abrupt and poorly motivated. After describing CLA and mental health, the text suddenly introduces pain as “a common physical comorbidity” with depression, and then directly states that pain may mediate the CLA–depression relationship. There is no prior conceptual bridge explaining why pain—among many possible physical and psychosocial factors (e.g. loneliness, disability, sleep, multimorbidity)—is singled out as a mediator. For readers, this jump feels arbitrary. The authors should either (i) build a much more explicit theoretical rationale why CLA → pain → depression is plausible and more central than other pathways, or (ii) reconsider whether mediation by pain is appropriate at all.

6. The Introduction blurs important conceptual distinctions, for example between “depression” and “depressive symptoms”, and between middle-aged vs older adults. The outcome is defined later by CES-D cut-offs, which reflects elevated depressive symptoms rather than clinical depression, but this nuance is not properly communicated in the opening part. Likewise, the text sometimes speaks broadly about “elderly” while the sample actually includes adults from 45 years upwards. These inconsistencies weaken conceptual clarity.

7. The discussion of existing evidence linking CLA and depression is very general and remains largely at the level of “some studies have shown an association.” There is no detailed synthesis of what is already known (e.g., cross-sectional vs longitudinal findings, effect sizes, limitations of prior work, whether prior studies are Chinese or non-Chinese), nor a precise identification of the specific gap that this study intends to fill (e.g., “no prior longitudinal analysis in a n

Methods

8. The extensive exclusion of participants (more than 75% of the original CHARLS sample) may introduce substantial selection bias, as the final analytic sample is considerably healthier and more complete than the general CHARLS population. This limitation should be clearly acknowledged, and the authors are encouraged to discuss its implications for external validity.

9. The operationalization of cognitive leisure activities (CLA) combines heterogeneous behaviors (e.g., playing board games, stock investment, Internet use), which may differ substantially in cognitive load and social components. While the authors may not be able to revise the measure, the potential construct heterogeneity and related misclassification should be explicitly discussed as a limitation.

10. The categorization of CLAS into four groups (0, 1, 2, >2) appears arbitrary and may lead to substantial information loss. The authors should justify the chosen cut-points or acknowledge the limitation of using coarse categorical groupings instead of continuous measures.

11. Pain was measured only by the number of pain types, without capturing important dimensions such as intensity, duration, or functional impact. This narrow operationalization may weaken the validity of the mediation model, and the authors should acknowledge this constraint.

12. Given that depressive symptoms were defined using CES-D-10 with a cut-off of ≥10, the outcome represents elevated depressive symptoms rather than clinically diagnosed depression. This distinction should be made clearer in the Methods section to avoid conceptual ambiguity.

13. The rationale for using a multilevel logistic regression model is not clearly described. The authors should specify the hierarchical structure (e.g., repeated measures across waves, community-level clustering) and clarify the random effects included in the model.

14. The complete-case analysis approach (excluding participants with any missing covariates) increases the risk of biased estimates. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and, if feasible, consider sensitivity analyses or discuss the potential benefits of multiple imputation.

Results

15. Statements such as “a 42% reduction in depression risk” imply causality, whereas the study design and logistic regression analyses can only support associations. The authors should revise the wording to reflect “lower odds” rather than “reduced risk.”

16. Path coefficients, confidence intervals, and model specifications are missing, making it difficult to assess whether pain can be meaningfully interpreted as a mediator. The mediation figure is unclear and does not follow standard mediation reporting conventions; the paths are not labeled (a, b, c, c'), the effect estimates are difficult to interpret without specifying the underlying models, and it is not stated whether the mediator is treated as categorical or continuous.

17. The regression models do not account for several well-established determinants of both leisure activity engagement and depressive symptoms—such as physical activity levels, socioeconomic status, and cognitive functioning. Because these factors are strongly related to both CLAS and depression, the absence of these key covariates raises substantial concerns about unmeasured confounding. The authors should acknowledge this as a major limitation and interpret the reported associations with appropriate caution.

Discussion

18. Several statements imply that CLA “reduces” or “prevents” depression, but the analyses only support associations. The causal language should be revised throughout the Discussion.

19. Only the highest CLAS group demonstrates a significant association in the fully adjusted model, while Groups 2 and 3 show no effect. The Discussion should be aligned with this non-linear pattern rather than framing it as a continuous increasing benefit.

20. The Discussion introduces assumptions about economic development, social resources, climate, and migration patterns, but none of these variables were measured. These interpretations should be clearly identified as hypotheses or removed unless supporting evidence is provided.

21. For example, the loss of significance for Group 3 in the fully adjusted model, the very small effect size of the mediation (10%), and the wide confidence intervals in regional analyses are not reflected in the Discussion. A more balanced interpretation acknowledging these inconsistencies is needed.

Review: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The results of this study are interesting and are in the expected direction with lower depression risk in those

who participate in cognitively stimulating leisure activities, with modulating effects of pain. As this is a

longitudinal study, some variables need clearer explanation and detail. 1. Incidence of depression as

measured by the CES-D is described as the main outcome. Please describe in section 2.2.2 the average

follow-up time of the study participants, and at which timepoint/s the CESD data was used for depression

incidence, and what was the incidence of depression at outcome. 2. The baseline characteristic for education

needs to be clarified in the results section as it is referred to only as middle and above, with no indication

there that this relates to education. 3. Marry status should be corrected to marital status. 4. In section 3.1, the

results for the covariates are not described in the direction of effect which needs to be added. For example, If

smoking is significant in Group 4, is this Yes or No ? 5. The CLAS was based on just 3 questions which may

not cover all the cognitively stimulating activities, including reading, that older people may do. This should be

acknowledged in the limitations to explain the small percentages of participants who responded positively. 6.

The figures do not have any legends, so are difficult to understand without referring to the text. Please

provide legends. Fig 4 does not display very well on the page. Hopefully this will be improved by the editing

process. Although the results for group 4 showed a very significant reduction in incidence of depression, the

group comprised only a small proportion of the overall study population.

Recommendation: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “Association Between Cognitive Leisure Activities and Depression in Chinese Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A CHARLS Cohort Study from 2011 to 2018” to Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. We appreciate the importance of the topic and the value of the CHARLS dataset. Both reviewers recognize the potential contribution of your study, yet they also identified substantial conceptual, methodological, and interpretational issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further.

After careful evaluation, we are inviting a major revision. Below, we summarize the key issues that require attention. Please prepare a detailed response letter addressing each point.

1. Conceptual Clarity and Definitions

Several key constructs require clearer and more rigorous definition.

• Cognitive leisure activities (CLA) should be better aligned with standard definitions in the literature. Reviewers note that watching television and similar activities have heterogeneous cognitive demands, raising questions about construct validity.

• The Introduction should avoid conflating “depression” with “depressive symptoms,” especially since outcomes rely on CES-D-10 thresholds, which reflect symptom severity rather than clinical diagnosis.

Please revise outdated or inaccurate statements (for example, China no longer has the largest population globally).

Strengthen the conceptual framework for the study aims. At present, the primary question, regional comparisons, and mediation by pain appear disconnected. The rationale for focusing on pain as the mediator—over other potential pathways—needs clearer theoretical justification.

2. Literature Review and Study Rationale

Reviewers comment that the existing evidence is summarized too briefly and lacks nuance. Please synthesize prior work more thoroughly:

• Distinguish cross-sectional vs longitudinal studies.

• Identify what is known in Chinese vs non-Chinese populations.

• Specify the actual gap your study fills.

When citing prevalence estimates of depression, revise implausible ranges and clarify whether these refer to symptoms or clinical diagnoses.

3. Methods: Measurement, Analytical Choices, and Reporting

Sample selection: More than 75% of the CHARLS sample was excluded. Please acknowledge the risk of selection bias and discuss implications for generalizability.

CLA operationalization:

• Explain the heterogeneity across CLA items.

• Discuss limitations of using only three items.

• Justify or acknowledge limitations of the categorical grouping (0, 1, 2, >2).

Pain measurement:

• Current measurement captures number of pain types only.

• Discuss limitations regarding intensity, duration, and functional impact, especially in the mediation model.

Depressive symptoms:

• Explicitly state that the CES-D-10 cut-off reflects elevated depressive symptoms, not clinical depression.

Statistical modeling:

• Clarify the rationale for multilevel logistic regression and describe the hierarchical structure (e.g., repeated observations, community clustering).

• Report which random effects were fitted.

Missing data:

• A complete-case approach may introduce bias; please acknowledge this limitation and consider (or discuss) alternatives such as multiple imputation.

Outcome incidence and timing: Reviewer 2 requests clarification of:

• Average follow-up duration,

• Which waves contributed CES-D data for incidence, and

• The incidence rate in the analytic sample.

4. Results: Accuracy, Mediation Reporting, and Model Interpretation

Statements implying causality (e.g., “42% reduction in risk”) should be revised to reflect associations (“lower odds”).

The mediation analysis requires substantially clearer reporting:

• Provide path coefficients, 95% CIs, and model details.

• Label paths as a, b, c, and c′ for transparency.

• Clarify whether the mediator was modeled as continuous or categorical.

Consider potential unmeasured confounding, including physical activity, socioeconomic status, and cognitive functioning, which may influence both CLA engagement and depressive symptoms. Please explicitly acknowledge these issues and interpret findings cautiously.

Provide clearer presentation of covariate effects. Reviewer 2 notes that for significant variables (e.g., smoking), the direction must be stated.

Improve all figures by adding legends and ensuring visual clarity.

5. Discussion: Overinterpretation, Causality, and Alignment With Results

Avoid causal statements; revise language such as “reduces depression” or “prevents depression.”

Interpret findings in alignment with the actual pattern of results:

• Only the highest CLAS level showed significant associations in fully adjusted models.

• The mediation effect was relatively small (approximately 10%).

• Wide confidence intervals in subgroup analyses require a more cautious tone.

Contextual speculation regarding climate, social resources, or migration is not supported by measured variables and should be removed or reframed as hypotheses.

Acknowledge that Group 4, although significant, represents a small proportion of the sample.

Next Steps

If you choose to revise the manuscript, please submit:

A clean revised version,

A tracked-changes version, and

A point-by-point response letter detailing how each reviewer comment was addressed.

We hope you find the reviewers’ feedback helpful in strengthening your study. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Professor Liye Zou

Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health

Decision: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Editor,

I am pleased to submit our original research article, “Association Between Cognitive Leisure Activities and Symptoms of Depression in Chinese Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A CHARLS Cohort Study from 2011 to 2018” for consideration as a Research Article in your journal. This longitudinal cohort study of 4,136 middle-aged and older Chinese adults demonstrates that high engagement in cognitive leisure activities (e.g., games, internet use) significantly reduces depression risk by 42%, with pain mediating 10.0% of this protective effect. Notably, subgroup analyses revealed heightened benefits for adults over 60 and residents of Eastern and Western China, highlighting important demographic and geographic considerations for public health interventions.

Our findings provide actionable insights for developing region-specific strategies to mitigate depression through accessible leisure activities—an urgent priority for rapidly aging societies like China. Beyond documenting these associations, our mediation analysis advances mechanistic understanding of how cognitive leisure activities confer mental health benefits, addressing a critical gap in longitudinal geriatric mental health research. The identification of pain as a mediating pathway represents a significant contribution to the field, offering new targets for clinical and community-based approaches.

We confirm that this manuscript is original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere. All authors declare no conflicts of interest and have approved this submission in accordance with your policies. We appreciate your consideration and welcome reviewer feedback to further strengthen this work.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely,

Dan Chen

Review: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors have carefully addressed all of my previous comments. I believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication and have no further comments.

Recommendation: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R1/PR8

Comments

Dear authors,

Thanks for your attention to successfully address all questions raised by two reviewers, especially Reviewer 1. Now I think your manuscript should be accepted for publication in the current form. I would like congratuate on your nice work.

Professor Liye Zou

Handling editor

Decision: Association between cognitive leisure activities and symptoms of depression in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: A CHARLS cohort study from 2011 to 2018 — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.