Home › Research › Caregiving
Caregiver Burden: A Clinical Review
Adelman RD, Tmanova LL, Delgado D, Dion S, Lachs MS. JAMA, 2014-03-12
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This JAMA clinical review synthesizes cohort studies and meta-analyses to give physicians practical guidance on recognizing, assessing, and treating caregiver burden. It identifies who is most at risk and reviews which interventions actually help, even modestly.
Key findings
- Risk factors for caregiver burden include being female, lower education, living with the care recipient, more hours spent caregiving, depression, social isolation, financial stress, and lack of choice in becoming a caregiver
- Support groups and psychoeducational interventions for dementia caregivers showed mild-to-modest efficacy (effect size 0.09-0.23)
- Managing the care recipient's dementia-related behaviors pharmacologically also showed modest benefit for caregiver burden (effect size 0.18-0.27)
- Many studies found improvement in burden-related symptoms (mood, coping, self-efficacy) even when overall caregiver burden itself barely changed
Why it matters
This clinical review identifies who is most at risk for caregiver burden and reviews which interventions help. Support groups and psychoeducational interventions for dementia caregivers showed only mild-to-modest efficacy.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Study designsystematic-review
- Effect sizeSupport/psychoeducation effect size 0.09-0.23; pharmacologic behavior management effect size 0.18-0.27 for caregiver burden
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
This is a narrative synthesis rather than a new pooled meta-analysis with a single N; effect sizes are described by the source as only 'mild-to-modest.'
How this study scored 61/100
Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and indexed in PubMed 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, 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 38 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 61 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (JAMA) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2014 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 38 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 61 out of 100. |
| Total | 61 / 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. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Adelman, R. D., Tmanova, L. L., Delgado, D., Dion, S., & Lachs, M. S. (2014). Caregiver Burden: A Clinical Review. JAMA.
Vancouver
Adelman RD, Tmanova LL, Delgado D, Dion S, Lachs MS. Caregiver Burden: A Clinical Review. JAMA. 2014. PMID: 24618967.
BibTeX
@article{adelman2014-1b049335,
author = {Adelman, R. D. and Tmanova, L. L. and Delgado, D. and Dion, S. and Lachs, M. S.},
title = {{Caregiver Burden: A Clinical Review}},
journal = {JAMA},
year = {2014},
pmid = {24618967}
}
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
15 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Caregiving
Also tagged “care”
996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.