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.

66/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Objectives Carers of people with dementia face barriers in accessing therapy for mental health difficulties. Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (cCBT) packages can be effective in treating a range of presentations; however, tailored packages for carers' unique needs are lacking. Our aim was to design a cCBT package for carers to address the limitations of previous online interventions, by including users and experts as consultants and collaborators throughout the project. Method We adopted a three-phase approach to the development process. Firstly, a data-gathering phase in which current literature and best practice was reviewed, and semi-structured interviews conducted with service users, academic and clinical experts. Secondly, a co-production and refinement phase with carers testing materials and providing feedback. Thirdly, a pilot field testing phase of service users and the research team testing the package. Results The 'Caring For Me and You' package adopted a transdiagnostic approach to take account of the range of difficulties that carers face. The package consisted of 20 short sessions with features built in to engage users and personalise content to meet individuals' needs. Conclusion User involvement was central to the design of the 'Caring For Me and You' package which is currently being evaluated in a three-arm randomised controlled trial.

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

APA 7th

Hales, S. A., & Fossey, J. (2018). Caring For Me and You: the co-production of a computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (cCBT) package for carers of people with dementia. Aging & mental health. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1348475

Vancouver

Hales SA, Fossey J. Caring For Me and You: the co-production of a computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (cCBT) package for carers of people with dementia. Aging & mental health. 2018. doi:10.1080/13607863.2017.1348475. PMID: 28691520.

BibTeX

@article{hales2018-28691520,
  author  = {Hales, S. A. and Fossey, J.},
  title   = {{Caring For Me and You: the co-production of a computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (cCBT) package for carers of people with dementia}},
  journal = {Aging \& mental health},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1080/13607863.2017.1348475},
  pmid    = {28691520},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1348475}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
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 high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. 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

Results The 'Caring For Me and You' package adopted a transdiagnostic approach to take account of the range of difficulties that carers face.

Study details

Study designrandomized controlled trial
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 66/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging & mental health)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized controlled trial
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	2 / 5	2018 — within 10 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	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28691520)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	38 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total	66 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years

Also tagged “caring”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caring”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →