Home › Research › Caregiving
Affiliate Stigma among family caregivers of individuals with dementia in China: a cross-sectional study
Yingying Shi, Shishi Dong, Zhiqi Liang, Mengting Xie, Hanyi Zhang, Sixie Li, Jufang Li. Frontiers in public health, 2024-05-30
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The mean score for affiliate stigma of dementia family caregivers was 48.09 ± 16.38 (range: 22-86). Whether there were regular breaks during patient care, time-dependent burden, developmental burden, physical burden, and social burden were significant factors influencing the affiliate stigma of dementia family caregivers. Dementia family caregivers showed a moderate to high level of affiliate stigma. Those who had regular breaks during patient care, higher time-dependent burden, developmental burden, and physical burden and lower social burden exhibited higher levels of affiliate stigma.
Key findings
- The mean score for affiliate stigma of dementia family caregivers was 48.09 ± 16.38 (range: 22-86).
- Whether there were regular breaks during patient care, time-dependent burden, developmental burden, physical burden, and social burden were significant factors influencing the affiliate stigma of dementia family caregivers.
- Dementia family caregivers showed a moderate to high level of affiliate stigma.
- Those who had regular breaks during patient care, higher time-dependent burden, developmental burden, and physical burden and lower social burden exhibited higher levels of affiliate stigma.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants727
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in public health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 727 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38873291) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 33 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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 7 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.
APA 7th
Shi, Y., Dong, S., Liang, Z., Xie, M., Zhang, H., Li, S., et al. (2024). Affiliate Stigma among family caregivers of individuals with dementia in China: a cross-sectional study. Frontiers in public health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1366143
Vancouver
Shi Y, Dong S, Liang Z, Xie M, Zhang H, Li S, et al. Affiliate Stigma among family caregivers of individuals with dementia in China: a cross-sectional study. Frontiers in public health. 2024. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1366143. PMID: 38873291.
BibTeX
@article{shi2024-38873291,
author = {Shi, Yingying and Dong, Shishi and Liang, Zhiqi and Xie, Mengting and Zhang, Hanyi and Li, Sixie and Li, Jufang},
title = {{Affiliate Stigma among family caregivers of individuals with dementia in China: a cross-sectional study}},
journal = {Frontiers in public health},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2024.1366143},
pmid = {38873291},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1366143}
}