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.

44/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Core cultural values, along with commonly held beliefs about dementia, influence the caregiving roles assumed by Hispanic/Latino caregivers. Further, cultural values inform the utilization of available supportive programs and may influence participation in community-based dementia-support interventions. This paper discusses attitudes and perspectives on participating in community-based dementia-support interventions using a focus group methodology of Hispanic/Latino staff ( n = 5). Findings from longitudinal focus groups ( n = 3) with Hispanic/Latino staff, serving predominantly Hispanic/Latino populations, are presented. Findings highlight the value of research funding to support immediate care-related needs over future-focused research. They also emphasize the importance of culturally appropriate terminology and the centrality of cultural values that align with dementia-support research to effectively engage Hispanic/Latino populations. As supportive interventions for dementia caregivers are developed and implemented in real-world settings, including and aligning with cultural elements (i.e., family-oriented, family relationships) may encourage greater participation of Hispanic/Latino caregivers in research.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

This is a follow-up (cohort) study. This study describes attitudes and perspectives of Hispanic/Latino staff on participating in community-based dementia-support interventions, highlighting the value of research funding for immediate care needs and culturally appropriate terminology. It does not test a treatment or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Parker, L. J., Nkimbeng, M. J., Rincongallardo, A., Marx, K., Johnson, E., Koeuth, S., et al. (2025). “But Then They Don’t Use the Same Money to Give Us Services”: Attitudes and Perspectives on Dementia Care Community-Based Research in Hispanic Communities. Journal of Applied Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648251331719

Vancouver

Parker LJ, Nkimbeng MJ, Rincongallardo A, Marx K, Johnson E, Koeuth S, et al. “But Then They Don’t Use the Same Money to Give Us Services”: Attitudes and Perspectives on Dementia Care Community-Based Research in Hispanic Communities. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2025. doi:10.1177/07334648251331719. PMID: 40227184.

BibTeX

@article{parker2025-40227184,
  author  = {Parker, Lauren J. and Nkimbeng, Manka J. and Rincongallardo, Alma and Marx, Katherine and Johnson, Elma and Koeuth, Sokha and Gaugler, Joseph E. and Gitlin, Laura N.},
  title   = {{“But Then They Don’t Use the Same Money to Give Us Services”: Attitudes and Perspectives on Dementia Care Community-Based Research in Hispanic Communities}},
  journal = {Journal of Applied Gerontology},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1177/07334648251331719},
  pmid    = {40227184},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648251331719}
}

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 follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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

This paper discusses attitudes and perspectives on participating in community-based dementia-support interventions using a focus group methodology of Hispanic/Latino staff ( n = 5).
Findings from longitudinal focus groups ( n = 3) with Hispanic/Latino staff, serving predominantly Hispanic/Latino populations, are presented.
Findings highlight the value of research funding to support immediate care-related needs over future-focused research.
They also emphasize the importance of culturally appropriate terminology and the centrality of cultural values that align with dementia-support research to effectively engage Hispanic/Latino populations.
As supportive interventions for dementia caregivers are developed and implemented in real-world settings, including and aligning with cultural elements (i.e., family-oriented, family relationships) may encourage greater participation of Hispanic/Latino caregivers in research.

Why it matters

This study describes attitudes and perspectives of Hispanic/Latino staff on participating in community-based dementia-support interventions, highlighting the value of research funding for immediate care needs and culturally appropriate terminology. It does not test a treatment or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 44/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Applied Gerontology)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Journal of Applied Gerontology: journal h-index 92 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
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	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 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	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	1 / 6	Cited 0.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Laura N. Gitlin: h-index 70 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	Johns Hopkins University: institution h-index 2,306 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40227184)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	44 / 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.

Related studies in Disparities from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →