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 50 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

This cross-sectional study explores caregivers' perceptions of feeding/eating difficulties in persons living with dementia, their support provisions, and the associated burdens. Cognitive decline, behavioral symptoms, and physical issues contribute to the deterioration of feeding/eating activities in people with dementia. Inadequate support during mealtimes has adverse consequences. This study includes 31 caregivers who completed an online questionnaire with three sections: sociodemographic information, feeding/eating problems and required support for individuals with dementia, and caregiver burden and distress. The questions on feeding and eating problems were adapted from the Appetite and Eating Habits Questionnaire (APEHQ). The results show that nearly all persons living with dementia had symptoms of feeding/eating problems, requiring caregiver support, ranging from verbal assistance to full physical assistance. The caregivers reported high distress, which was positively correlated with dementia severity. The findings emphasize the importance of raising caregiver awareness about dementia's impact on eating behavior, identifying effective mealtime care strategies, meeting nutritional needs, and emphasizing personal self-care. This research provides insights for healthcare professionals to develop targeted interventions, alleviate caregiver burden, improve mealtime experiences, and ensure adequate nutrition for persons living with dementia.

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

APA 7th

Sharma, S., Halim, N. A. A., & Maniam, P. (2024). Caregiver Experiences with Dementia-Related Feeding/Eating Difficulties. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020133

Vancouver

Sharma S, Halim NAA, Maniam P. Caregiver Experiences with Dementia-Related Feeding/Eating Difficulties. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). 2024. doi:10.3390/healthcare12020133. PMID: 38255022.

BibTeX

@article{sharma2024-38255022,
  author  = {Sharma, Shobha and Halim, Nur Atiqah A and Maniam, Puspa},
  title   = {{Caregiver Experiences with Dementia-Related Feeding/Eating Difficulties}},
  journal = {Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.3390/healthcare12020133},
  pmid    = {38255022},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020133}
}

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 50/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / 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; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 28 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.28 of the 56 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland))
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
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 4 / 5 2024 — 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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38255022)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 28 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 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 Caregiving

Also tagged “caregiver”

195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →