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 59 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Purpose This study assessed overall quality of life of caregivers, using a path model in which burden was conceptualized as distinct from well-being. Design and methods Data were drawn from a representative sample of caregivers to dementia and nondementia care receivers in British Columbia, Canada (N = 243). The model used was based on a previously proposed stress/appraisal path model and used multiple regression path estimates. Primary stressors were care receiver cognitive status, physical function, and behavioral problems; the primary appraisal variable was hours of caregiving during the previous week. Mediators were perceived social support, frequency of getting a break, and hours of formal service use; secondary appraisal was subjective burden. The outcome measure was generalized well-being. Results Well-being was directly affected by four variables: perceived social support, burden, self-esteem, and hours of informal care. Burden was affected directly by behavioral problems, frequency of getting a break, self-esteem, and informal hours of care and was not affected by perceived social support. Discussion The finding that perceived social support is strongly related to well-being but unrelated to burden reinforces the conceptual distinctiveness of the latter two concepts. This suggests that quality of life of caregivers could be improved even with burden in their lives and that the overwhelming focus in caregiving research on burden should be supplemented with an emphasis on quality of life.

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

APA 7th

Chappell, N. L., & Reid, R. C. (2002). Burden and well-being among caregivers: examining the distinction. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/42.6.772

Vancouver

Chappell NL, Reid RC. Burden and well-being among caregivers: examining the distinction. The Gerontologist. 2002. doi:10.1093/geront/42.6.772. PMID: 12451158.

BibTeX

@article{chappell2002-12451158,
  author  = {Chappell, N. L. and Reid, R. C.},
  title   = {{Burden and well-being among caregivers: examining the distinction}},
  journal = {The Gerontologist},
  year    = {2002},
  doi     = {10.1093/geront/42.6.772},
  pmid    = {12451158},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/42.6.772}
}

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

Why it matters

In 243 caregivers, this study found well-being was directly affected by social support, burden, self-esteem and hours of informal care, and that burden and well-being are distinct. It suggests caregiver quality of life can improve even with burden present, but offers no treatment, cure or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited 6 of 7; Citations per year 3 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 2 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 57 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.57 of the 96 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 57 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Gerontologist)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 The Gerontologist: journal h-index 238 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 1 / 5 2002 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 2 / 4 243 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 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited 6 / 7 Cited 378 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 3 / 5 14.5 citations a year over 26 year(s) since 2002
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 19.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 2 / 6 Cited by 6 other studies in this library
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 28 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 0 / 3 University of Victoria: institution h-index 649 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre 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 12451158)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 57 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 57 of the 96 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

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.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

6 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Caregiving

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 Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →