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.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background People living with dementia (PlwD) in Germany are primarily cared for by informal caregivers who often face health problems, social isolation, and low quality of life. Identifying and addressing their needs is crucial for their well-being and the stability of the care arrangement. The aim of the study was to investigate the efficacy of a digitally supported care management program for informal caregivers for PlwD. Methods Longitudinal, cluster-randomized controlled trial in a primary care setting in Germany. The intervention is based on a comprehensive tablet-based self-assessment in GPs practices and memory clinics, using pre-specified algorithms to identify unmet needs and develop an individualized support and care plan for each caregiver. The care managers conducted home visits, discussing, adapting, and actively supporting plan implementation over six months. Primary outcomes included the number of unmet needs after six months and the caregiver’s health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were caregiver burden and social network. Statistical analyses include descriptive analyses as well as different clustered linear and Poisson regression models (base: adjusted only for baseline value and multivariate: adjusted for additional variables). Results 192 informal caregivers of community-dwelling PlwD partook in the study, randomized into control (n = 96, care as usual) and intervention (n = 96) groups. In the base analysis the the reduction of needs overall was significantly better in the intervention group compared to the control group. However, the multivariate analysis alleviated this effect. We saw no effect on health-related quality of life or the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our study delivers ambivalent results for the efficacy of care management for caregivers. Unmet needs could be reduced, but the size of this effect decreases with more variables in the model. Also, no effects on other variables could be shown. Care management shows some potential but needs further refinement and tailoring.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 1 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 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 33 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 53 of 100. Raw total 53 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 53 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 53 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 33 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 96 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 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 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 33 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100.
Total 53 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Boekholt, M., Biernetzky, O., Thyrian, JR., Blotenberg, I., Teipel, S., Michalowsky, B., et al. (2026). Efficacy of care management in reducing needs of caregivers of people with dementia. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10521194/v1

Vancouver

Boekholt M, Biernetzky O, Thyrian JR, Blotenberg I, Teipel S, Michalowsky B, et al. Efficacy of care management in reducing needs of caregivers of people with dementia. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10521194/v1.

BibTeX

@article{boekholt2026-dc67c10d,
  author  = {Boekholt, M. and Biernetzky, O. and Thyrian, JR. and Blotenberg, I. and Teipel, S. and Michalowsky, B. and Afrin, D. and Kilimann, I. and others},
  title   = {{Efficacy of care management in reducing needs of caregivers of people with dementia}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10521194/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10521194/v1}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

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 Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →