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.

50/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Breakdown (coded as 0) was associated with caregivers changing topic (median = -11.45, 95% credibility interval [CrI; -24.34, -4.37]), ignoring (median = -11.49, 95% CrI [-24.49, -4.72]), giving commands (median = -10.74, 95% CrI [-24.22, -3.38]), and taking over the task (median = -4.06, 95% CrI [-7.28, -1.77]). Successful repair of breakdown was associated with verbalizing understanding (median = 0.46, 95% CrI [0.09, 0.86]), tag questions, (median = 2.4, 95% CrI [0.33, 5.35]), and silence (median = 0.78, 95% CrI [0.42, 1.15]) and negatively associated with ignoring and changing topic (median = -3.63, 95% CrI [-4.81, -2.57] and -2.51 [-3.78, -1.33], respectively). DISCUSSION AND The TSR was effective in identifying specific communication strategies to avoid (changing topic, ignoring, commands, and taking over the task) and to use to repair breakdown (verbalize understanding, tag questions, and silence). Future research is needed to test these strategies and explore the potential effects of dementia stage, diagnosis, and dyad characteristics in additional samples. Behavioral coding provides evidence of communication best practices as a basis for family caregiver communication training.

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

APA 7th

Williams, K. N., Coleman, C. K., & Hu, J. (2023). Determining Evidence for Family Caregiver Communication: Associating Communication Behaviors With Breakdown and Repair. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac193

Vancouver

Williams KN, Coleman CK, Hu J. Determining Evidence for Family Caregiver Communication: Associating Communication Behaviors With Breakdown and Repair. The Gerontologist. 2023. doi:10.1093/geront/gnac193. PMID: 36574501.

BibTeX

@article{williams2023-36574501,
  author  = {Williams, Kristine N and Coleman, Carissa K and Hu, Jinxiang},
  title   = {{Determining Evidence for Family Caregiver Communication: Associating Communication Behaviors With Breakdown and Repair}},
  journal = {The Gerontologist},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1093/geront/gnac193},
  pmid    = {36574501},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac193}
}

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

Breakdown (coded as 0) was associated with caregivers changing topic (median = -11.45, 95% credibility interval [CrI; -24.34, -4.37]), ignoring (median = -11.49, 95% CrI [-24.49, -4.72]), giving commands (median = -10.74, 95% CrI [-24.22, -3.38]), and taking over the task (median = -4.06, 95% CrI [-7.28, -1.77]).
Successful repair of breakdown was associated with verbalizing understanding (median = 0.46, 95% CrI [0.09, 0.86]), tag questions, (median = 2.4, 95% CrI [0.33, 5.35]), and silence (median = 0.78, 95% CrI [0.42, 1.15]) and negatively associated with ignoring and changing topic (median = -3.63, 95% CrI [-4.81, -2.57] and -2.51 [-3.78, -1.33], respectively).
DISCUSSION AND The TSR was effective in identifying specific communication strategies to avoid (changing topic, ignoring, commands, and taking over the task) and to use to repair breakdown (verbalize understanding, tag questions, and silence).
Future research is needed to test these strategies and explore the potential effects of dementia stage, diagnosis, and dyad characteristics in additional samples.
Behavioral coding provides evidence of communication best practices as a basis for family caregiver communication training.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →

Study details

Participants221
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 50/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Gerontologist)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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	3 / 5	2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	221 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)
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 36574501)
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.

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.

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →