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 69 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background/objective Various behavioral interventions are recommended to combat the distress experienced by caregivers of those with cognitive decline, but their comparative effectiveness is poorly understood. Design/setting Caregivers in a comparative intervention study randomly had 1 of 5 possible interventions suppressed while receiving the other four. Caregivers in a full clinical program received all 5 intervention components. Care partner outcomes in the study group were compared to participants enrolled in a full clinical program. Participants Two hundred and seventy-two dyads of persons with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) and care partners enrolled in the comparative intervention study. 265 dyads participated in the full clinical program. Intervention Behavioral intervention components included: memory compensation training, computerized cognitive training, yoga, support group, and wellness education. Each was administered for 10 sessions over 2 weeks. Measurements A longitudinal mixed-effect regression model was used to analyze the effects of the interventions on partner burden, quality of life (QoL), mood, anxiety, and self-efficacy at 12 months follow-up. Results At 12 months, withholding wellness education or yoga had a significantly negative impact on partner anxiety compared to partners in the clinical program (ES=0.55 and 0.44, respectively). Although not statistically significant, withholding yoga had a negative impact on partner burden and mood compared to partners in the full clinical program (ES=0.32 and 0.36, respectively). Conclusion Our results support the benefits of wellness education and yoga for improving partner's burden, mood, and anxiety at one year. Our findings are the first to provide an exploration of the impact of multicomponent interventions in care partners of pwMCI.

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

APA 7th

Amofa, P. A., Locke, D. E. C., Chandler, M., Crook, J. E., Ball, C. T., Phatak, V., et al. (2021). Comparative Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: One-Year Partner Outcomes. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.59

Vancouver

Amofa PA, Locke DEC, Chandler M, Crook JE, Ball CT, Phatak V, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: One-Year Partner Outcomes. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2021. doi:10.14283/jpad.2020.59. PMID: 33336222.

BibTeX

@article{amofa2021-33336222,
  author  = {Amofa, P. A. and Locke, D. E. C. and Chandler, M. and Crook, J. E. and Ball, C. T. and Phatak, V. and Smith, G. E.},
  title   = {{Comparative Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions to Prevent or Delay Dementia: One-Year Partner Outcomes}},
  journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.14283/jpad.2020.59},
  pmid    = {33336222},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.59}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 69/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 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 0 of 2. 40 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 69 of 100. Total 69 of 100.40 of the 58 points we could judge = 69 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 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 1 / 2 Randomised (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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33336222)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 40 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100.
Total 69 / 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.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “randomized-controlled-trial”

13 studies in the library carry the topic tag “randomized-controlled-trial”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 13 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →