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 78 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Importance Caregiver burden may result from providing care for patients with chronic illness. It can occur in any of the 43.5 million individuals providing support to midlife and older adults. Caregiver burden is frequently overlooked by clinicians. Objectives To outline the epidemiology of caregiver burden; to provide strategies to diagnose, assess, and intervene for caregiver burden in clinical practice; and to evaluate evidence on interventions intended to avert or mitigate caregiver burden and related caregiver distress. Evidence Cohort studies examining the relation between demographic and social risk factors and adverse outcomes of caregiver burden were reviewed. Review of recent meta-analyses to summarize the effectiveness of caregiver burden interventions were identified by searching Ovid MEDLINE, AgeLine, and the Cochrane Library. Results Risk factors for caregiver burden include female sex, low educational attainment, residence with the care recipient, higher number of hours spent caregiving, depression, social isolation, financial stress, and lack of choice in being a caregiver. Practical assessment strategies for caregiver burden exist to evaluate caregivers, their care recipients, and the care recipient's overall caregiving needs. A variety of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions have shown mild to modest efficacy in mitigating caregiver burden and associated manifestations of caregiver distress in high-quality meta-analyses. Psychosocial interventions include support groups or psychoeducational interventions for caregivers of dementia patients (effect size, 0.09-0.23). Pharmacologic interventions include use of anticholinergics or antipsychotic medications for dementia or dementia-related behaviors in the care recipient (effect size, 0.18-0.27). Many studies showed improvements in caregiver burden-associated symptoms (eg, mood, coping, self-efficacy) even when caregiver burden itself was minimally improved. Conclusions and relevance Physicians have a responsibility to recognize caregiver burden. Caregiver assessment and intervention should be tailored to the individual circumstances and contexts in which caregiver burden occurs.

Key findings

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.

Study details

How this study scored 78/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 10 of 10; Journal's citation record 4 of 4; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 7 of 7; Citations per year 5 of 5; Impact for its field and year 6 of 6; Cited by studies here 3 of 6; Still being cited 4 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. Total 78 of 100.78 of 100 points earned22 not earned

Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 10 / 10 Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (JAMA)
Journal's citation record 4 / 4 JAMA: journal h-index 1,011 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 12 / 12 A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” 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 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited 7 / 7 Cited 1,984 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 5 / 5 141.7 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014
Impact for its field and year 6 / 6 Cited 205.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 3 / 6 Cited by 15 other studies in this library
Still being cited 4 / 4 Cited 544 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author Mark S. Lachs: h-index 52 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 Cornell University: institution h-index 1,649 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24618967)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total 78 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

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. 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. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.304

Vancouver

Adelman RD, Tmanova LL, Delgado D, Dion S, Lachs MS. Caregiver burden: a clinical review. JAMA. 2014. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.304. PMID: 24618967.

BibTeX

@article{adelman2014-24618967,
  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},
  doi     = {10.1001/jama.2014.304},
  pmid    = {24618967},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.304}
}

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.

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →