Home › Research › Digital health tools
Communication skills training in a nursing home: effects of a brief intervention on residents and nursing aides
Sprangers S, Dijkstra K, Romijn-Luijten A.. Clinical interventions in aging, 2015-01-20
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Effective communication by nursing home staff is related to a higher quality of life and a decrease in verbal and physical aggression and depression in nursing home residents. Several communication intervention studies have been conducted to improve communication between nursing home staff and nursing home residents with dementia. These studies have shown that communication skills training can improve nursing aides' communication with nursing home residents. However, these studies tended to be time-consuming and fairly difficult to implement. Moreover, these studies focused on the communicative benefits for the nursing home residents and their well-being, while benefits and well-being for the nursing aides were neglected. The current study focused on implementing a brief communication skills training program to improve nursing aides' (N=24) communication with residents with dementia (N=26) in a nursing home. The effects of the training on nursing aides' communication, caregiver distress, and job satisfaction and residents' psychopathology and agitation were assessed relative to a control group condition. Nursing aides in the intervention group were individually trained to communicate effectively with residents during morning care by using short instructions, positive speech, and biographical statements. Mixed ANOVAs showed that, after training, nursing aides in the intervention group experienced less caregiver distress. Additionally, the number of short instructions and instances of positive speech increased. Providing nursing aides with helpful feedback during care aids communication and reduces caregiver burden, even with a brief intervention that requires limited time investments for nursing home staff.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sprangers, S., Dijkstra, K., & Romijn-Luijten, A. (2015). Communication skills training in a nursing home: effects of a brief intervention on residents and nursing aides. Clinical interventions in aging. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s73053
Vancouver
Sprangers S, Dijkstra K, Romijn-Luijten A. Communication skills training in a nursing home: effects of a brief intervention on residents and nursing aides. Clinical interventions in aging. 2015. doi:10.2147/cia.s73053. PMID: 25653513.
BibTeX
@article{sprangers2015-25653513,
author = {Sprangers, S. and Dijkstra, K. and Romijn-Luijten, A.},
title = {{Communication skills training in a nursing home: effects of a brief intervention on residents and nursing aides}},
journal = {Clinical interventions in aging},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.2147/cia.s73053},
pmid = {25653513},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s73053}
}
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
- These studies have shown that communication skills training can improve nursing aides' communication with nursing home residents.
- Mixed ANOVAs showed that, after training, nursing aides in the intervention group experienced less caregiver distress.
Why it matters
A brief communication skills training programme for nursing aides in a nursing home reduced caregiver distress in the intervention group. This is about improving communication and caregiver well-being, not about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants24
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 42/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 40 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 42 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical interventions in aging) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Clinical Interventions in Aging: journal h-index 138 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 24 participants |
| 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 (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 4 / 7 | Cited 61 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 4.7 citations a year over 13 year(s) since 2015 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 10.5× 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 | 1 / 4 | Cited 12 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Anna Romijn-Luijten holds only 2 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Erasmus University Rotterdam: institution h-index 837 (OpenAlex) |
| Multicenter collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25653513) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 42 out of 100. |
| Total | 42 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.2147/cia.s73053
- PubMed: 25653513
- Original source →
- Free full text: Clinical Interventions in Aging →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
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 Digital health tools
Also tagged “controlled”
1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.