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 39 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Spousal caregivers of persons living with dementia (PLwD) often experience high overload and loneliness due to the intensive and ongoing nature of caregiving for their partner. Paid in-home services, such as assistance with daily household tasks, respite care, or personal care, might help ease caregivers' physical strain; however, it is unclear if these in-home services effectively address loneliness and overload and whether their benefits differ by gender. Guided by the Stress Process Model, we analyzed structured interview data from 61 spousal caregivers living in rural Appalachia. Although husbands reported significantly lower loneliness and overload than wives, the overall use of paid services was similar across husbands and wives. Among those experiencing high stress, however, a higher percentage of husbands used in-home paid services than wives. Logistic regression analyses revealed that greater emotional strain (overload and loneliness) and higher functional impairment of the PLwD were independently associated with increased likelihood of paid service use. Our findings underscore the need for programs and policies to acknowledge emotional strain as a legitimate criterion for eligibility for paid services.

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

APA 7th

Savla, J. T., Roberto, K. A., & Fontaine, L. A. (2025). Gender differences in spousal caregiver strain and paid service use among dementia caregivers in rural Appalachia. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1620744

Vancouver

Savla JT, Roberto KA, Fontaine LA. Gender differences in spousal caregiver strain and paid service use among dementia caregivers in rural Appalachia. Frontiers in Public Health. 2025. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1620744. PMID: 40880915.

BibTeX

@article{savla2025-40880915,
  author  = {Savla, Jyoti Tina and Roberto, Karen A. and Fontaine, Leslie A.},
  title   = {{Gender differences in spousal caregiver strain and paid service use among dementia caregivers in rural Appalachia}},
  journal = {Frontiers in Public Health},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.3389/fpubh.2025.1620744},
  pmid    = {40880915},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1620744}
}

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

Why it matters

Among 61 spousal caregivers in rural Appalachia, husbands reported lower loneliness and overload than wives, while overall use of paid services was similar. Greater emotional strain and worse functional impairment in the person with dementia were linked to more paid service use.

Study details

How this study scored 39/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 2 of 7; Citations per year 1 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multicenter collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 37 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 39 of 100. Total 39 of 100.37 of the 96 points we could judge = 39 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 37 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in Public Health)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Frontiers in Public Health: journal h-index 174 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 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 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 2 / 7 Cited 5 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 1 / 5 1.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 3.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 1 / 6 Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 5 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Leslie A. Fontaine holds only 2 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record 1 / 3 Virginia Tech: institution h-index 834 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40880915)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 37 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100.
Total 39 / 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

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Caregiving

Also tagged “care”

995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; 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 →