↓ Skip to main content

The effects of a multi-component dyadic intervention on the psychological distress of family caregivers providing care to people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in International Psychogeriatrics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
413 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effects of a multi-component dyadic intervention on the psychological distress of family caregivers providing care to people with dementia: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
International Psychogeriatrics, May 2015
DOI 10.1017/s104161021500071x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna-Eva Prick, Jacomine de Lange, Jos Twisk, Anne Margriet Pot

Abstract

Earlier research showed that multi-component dyadic interventions - including a combination of intervention strategies and addressing both the person with dementia and caregiver - have a beneficial impact on the mental and physical health of people with dementia and their family caregivers. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a multi-component dyadic intervention, which is a translated and adapted version of an intervention that has been shown to be effective in the US by Teri et al. (2003), was performed. The effects on caregivers' mood (primary outcome), burden, general health, and salivary cortisol levels (secondary outcomes) were studied. Community-dwelling people with dementia and their family caregivers (N = 111 dyads) were randomly assigned. The experimental group received eight home visits during three months, combining physical exercise and support (psycho-education, communication skills training, and planning of pleasant activities). Both the physical exercise and support component were directed at both the person with dementia and the caregiver. The comparison group received monthly information bulletins and phone calls. There were three measurements at baseline (prior to the intervention), at three months, and at six months into the intervention. Data were analyzed with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) based on an intention-to-treat analysis of all available data. All analyses showed no benefits of the intervention over time on any of the outcomes. The negative results might be explained by the translation and adaptation of the intervention that has been shown to be effective in the US: the intervention was shortened and did not include cognitive reframing. However, only the health effects on people with dementia and not on caregivers were studied in the US. Several other factors might also have played a role, which are important for future studies to take into account. These are: the usual health care in the country or region of implementation; the wishes and needs of participants for specific intervention components; the room for improvement regarding these components; the inclusion of positive outcome measures, such as pleasure, and the quality of the relationship.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 413 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 412 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 14%
Student > Bachelor 49 12%
Researcher 40 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 64 15%
Unknown 118 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 79 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 64 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 56 14%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Sports and Recreations 19 5%
Other 36 9%
Unknown 134 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,791,734
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from International Psychogeriatrics
#730
of 1,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,176
of 267,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Psychogeriatrics
#14
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.