A systematic review of the… | 2007

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

16/100

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Results Twenty-two primary studies were included. Effectiveness evidence suggests that the consequences of respite upon carers and care recipients are generally small, with better controlled studies finding modest benefits only for certain subgroups. Day care tended to be associated with higher costs and either similar or a slight increase in benefits, relative to usual care. Economic evidence suggests that day care is at least as costly as usual care.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Mason, A., Weatherly, H., Spilsbury, K., Arksey, H., Golder, S., Adamson, J., et al. (2007). A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta11150

Vancouver

Mason A, Weatherly H, Spilsbury K, Arksey H, Golder S, Adamson J, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2007. doi:10.3310/hta11150. PMID: 17459263.

BibTeX

@article{mason2007-17459263,
  author  = {Mason, A. and Weatherly, H. and Spilsbury, K. and Arksey, H. and Golder, S. and Adamson, J. and Drummond, M. and Glendinning, C.},
  title   = {{A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers}},
  journal = {Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)},
  year    = {2007},
  doi     = {10.3310/hta11150},
  pmid    = {17459263},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3310/hta11150}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Twenty-two primary studies were included.
Effectiveness evidence suggests that the consequences of respite upon carers and care recipients are generally small, with better controlled studies finding modest benefits only for certain subgroups.
Day care tended to be associated with higher costs and either similar or a slight increase in benefits, relative to usual care.
Economic evidence suggests that day care is at least as costly as usual care.

Why it matters

This systematic review examined community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers. It found only small benefits for certain subgroups and that day care was at least as costly as usual care, so it does not offer a treatment, cure or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 16/100

Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 42 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Health technology assessment (Winchester, England))
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”)
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	3 / 10	Report — not peer-reviewed. Named source is an organizational report, not a journal article.
How recent	1 / 5	2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 156 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	7.4 citations a year over 21 year(s) since 2007
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 18 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Caroline Glendinning: h-index 47 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	University of York: institution h-index 777 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17459263)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	42 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Disparities from nearby years

Also tagged “palliative”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “palliative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →