Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Caregivers of persons with dementia/Alzheimer's disease (AD) experience considerable physical and psychological burdens associated with their caregiving role. Although mobile technologies have the potential to deliver caregiver supports, it is necessary to demonstrate that caregivers in need of these supports are technology-enabled, that they can be identified and accessed, and that they experience the same unfavorable mental health outcomes characteristic of the broader caregiving population. Our objective was to enroll a cohort of technology-enabled caregivers to determine basic demographic characteristics and assess level of caregiver burden, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance as part of a larger project to deliver caregiver support. Methods Web-based enrollment and data collection measuring caregiver burden with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI), anxiety and depression with the M-3, and sleep disturbance with the PROMIS Sleep Disturbance form. Results A total of 165 caregivers enrolled via an online portal, all of whom provided care for someone with AD and owned a smart phone. Mean age of this group with 57.9 years, 90.3% was female, 88.5% was White, 51.5% reported providing care for a parent, 9.3% reported providing care for more than 10 years, and 24.8% reported providing more than 100 hours of care each week. Sixty-four percent of caregivers screened positive for both anxiety and depression, and nearly 62% of the sample had moderate or severe caregiver burden. Scores on depression, anxiety, and sleep quality assessments correlated moderately or strongly with caregiver burden. Conclusions Dementia caregivers with Internet and smartphone access demonstrate high levels of caregiver burden, depression, and anxiety, and are well-suited to receive caregiver support services delivered via mobile devices that target these issues.

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

APA 7th

Coffman, I., Resnick, H. E., & Lathan, C. E. (2017). Behavioral health characteristics of a technology-enabled sample of Alzheimer's caregivers with high caregiver burden. mHealth. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.01

Vancouver

Coffman I, Resnick HE, Lathan CE. Behavioral health characteristics of a technology-enabled sample of Alzheimer's caregivers with high caregiver burden. mHealth. 2017. doi:10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.01. PMID: 28894746.

BibTeX

@article{coffman2017-28894746,
  author  = {Coffman, I. and Resnick, H. E. and Lathan, C. E.},
  title   = {{Behavioral health characteristics of a technology-enabled sample of Alzheimer's caregivers with high caregiver burden}},
  journal = {mHealth},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.01},
  pmid    = {28894746},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2017.08.01}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 53/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 31 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Total 53 of 100.31 of the 58 points we could judge = 53 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (mHealth)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 165 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28894746)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 31 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 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.

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

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “health”

4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “health”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →