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.

65/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Objectives To examine the relationships between changes from baseline to post-Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health (REACH) intervention in caregiver (CG) self-reported health, burden, and bother. Design Randomized, multisite clinical trial. Setting CG and care recipient (CR) homes in five U.S. cities. Participants Four hundred ninety-five dementia CG and CR dyads (169 Hispanic, 160 white, and 166 African American) receiving intervention and their controls. Intervention CGs were assigned to the REACH intervention or a no-treatment control group. Intervention subjects received individual risk profiles and the REACH intervention through nine in-home and three telephone sessions over 6 months. Control subjects received two brief "check-in" telephone calls during this 6-month period. Measurements The primary outcome was change in CG health status from baseline to after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were CG burden and bother after the intervention. Results After the intervention, CGs reported better self-rated health, sleep quality, physical health, and emotional health, which was related to less burden and bother with their caregiving role than for CGs not receiving the intervention. Changes in depression appeared to mediate these relationships. Several racial and ethnic group differences existed in physical and emotional health, as well as in total frustration with caregiving, emotional burden, and CG-rated bother with CR's activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living at baseline and at follow-up, although differences between baseline and posttest did not vary according to race. Conclusion A structured, multicomponent skills training intervention that targeted CG self-care behaviors as one of five target areas, improved self-reported health status, and decreased burden and bother in racially and ethnically diverse CGs of people with dementia.

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

APA 7th

Elliott, A. F., Burgio, L. D., & Decoster, J. (2010). Enhancing caregiver health: findings from the resources for enhancing Alzheimer's caregiver health II intervention. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02631.x

Vancouver

Elliott AF, Burgio LD, Decoster J. Enhancing caregiver health: findings from the resources for enhancing Alzheimer's caregiver health II intervention. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02631.x. PMID: 20122038.

BibTeX

@article{elliott2010-20122038,
  author  = {Elliott, A. F. and Burgio, L. D. and Decoster, J.},
  title   = {{Enhancing caregiver health: findings from the resources for enhancing Alzheimer's caregiver health II intervention}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2010},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02631.x},
  pmid    = {20122038},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02631.x}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results After the intervention, CGs reported better self-rated health, sleep quality, physical health, and emotional health, which was related to less burden and bother with their caregiving role than for CGs not receiving the intervention.

Why it matters

In this randomized multisite trial of 495 dementia caregiver and care recipient dyads, caregivers who received the REACH intervention reported better self-rated health, sleep quality, physical health, and emotional health, and less burden and bother, than controls. Changes in depression appeared to mediate these relationships.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 65/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized 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	2010 — 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)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 237 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	13.2 citations a year over 18 year(s) since 2010
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 9.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 8 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 34 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Jamie DeCoster: h-index 49 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Michigan: institution h-index 2,240 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20122038)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	65 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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.

Later studies that cite this one

8 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Caregiving from nearby years

Also tagged “nursing”

995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “nursing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →