Home › Research › Caregiving
Effects of the NYU caregiver intervention-adult child on residential care placement
Joseph E Gaugler, Mark Reese, Mary S Mittelman. The Gerontologist, 2013-01-20
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Two thirds (66%) of adult child caregivers in the control condition admitted their parent to a residential care setting compared with 37% in the treatment condition. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models found that NYUCI-AC participants were significantly less likely (p < .05) to admit their parents to a residential care setting and delayed their parents' time to admission significantly longer (228.36 days longer on average) than those in the control group. The multicomponent NYUCI-AC offered adult children the psychosocial support required to continue providing care to cognitively impaired parents at home.
Key findings
- Two thirds (66%) of adult child caregivers in the control condition admitted their parent to a residential care setting compared with 37% in the treatment condition.
- Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models found that NYUCI-AC participants were significantly less likely (p < .05) to admit their parents to a residential care setting and delayed their parents' time to admission significantly longer (228.36 days longer on average) than those in the control group.
- The multicomponent NYUCI-AC offered adult children the psychosocial support required to continue providing care to cognitively impaired parents at home.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 71 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 | 11 / 12 | A randomised 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 | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 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 23339050) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 40 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Gaugler, J. E., Reese, M., & Mittelman, M. S. (2013). Effects of the NYU caregiver intervention-adult child on residential care placement. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns193
Vancouver
Gaugler JE, Reese M, Mittelman MS. Effects of the NYU caregiver intervention-adult child on residential care placement. The Gerontologist. 2013. doi:10.1093/geront/gns193. PMID: 23339050.
BibTeX
@article{gaugler2013-23339050,
author = {Gaugler, Joseph E and Reese, Mark and Mittelman, Mary S},
title = {{Effects of the NYU caregiver intervention-adult child on residential care placement}},
journal = {The Gerontologist},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1093/geront/gns193},
pmid = {23339050},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns193}
}