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.

38/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Background There is limited experience in combining interdisciplinary rehabilitation for persons with dementia and caregiver support.Aim To explore how informal caregivers perceive participation in a person-centred, multidimensional, interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme targeting community-dwelling older adults with dementia and their informal caregivers, and how the programme has influenced their everyday life.Material and Methods Fourteen informal caregivers, aged 45–84 years, participated in a qualitative interview following a randomised controlled pilot study. Transcribed interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.Results The analysis resulted in seven categories and three themes: feeling challenged and boosted to face an uncertain future, perceiving supportive activities as sources of both joy and frustration in everyday life and finding relief in recognising their relative’s former self.Conclusions and Significance Combining interdisciplinary rehabilitation for adults with dementia with education and support for caregivers was perceived as viable and valuable for the informal caregivers. They felt strengthened by the rehabilitation and better prepared for their uncertain future. However, participation also challenged everyday routines, but the benefits appeared to outweigh the strain.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: High

Informal caregivers in this qualitative study felt strengthened by an interdisciplinary rehabilitation program and better prepared for an uncertain future, though participation also challenged everyday routines. They perceived the benefits as outweighing the strain.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Lampinen, J., Nilsson, I., Conradsson, M., Littbrand, H., Sondell, A., Gustafson, Y., et al. (2025). Informal caregivers’ perspectives on participation in a dementia rehabilitation programme. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2025.2463374

Vancouver

Lampinen J, Nilsson I, Conradsson M, Littbrand H, Sondell A, Gustafson Y, et al. Informal caregivers’ perspectives on participation in a dementia rehabilitation programme. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2025. doi:10.1080/11038128.2025.2463374. PMID: 39950207.

BibTeX

@article{lampinen2025-39950207,
  author  = {Lampinen, Josefine and Nilsson, Ingeborg and Conradsson, Mia and Littbrand, Håkan and Sondell, Anna and Gustafson, Yngve and Öhlin, Jerry and Lindelöf, Nina},
  title   = {{Informal caregivers’ perspectives on participation in a dementia rehabilitation programme}},
  journal = {Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1080/11038128.2025.2463374},
  pmid    = {39950207},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2025.2463374}
}

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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
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

Transcribed interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.Results The analysis resulted in seven categories and three themes: feeling challenged and boosted to face an uncertain future, perceiving supportive activities as sources of both joy and frustration in everyday life and finding relief in recognising their relative’s former self.Conclusions and Significance Combining interdisciplinary rehabilitation for adults with dementia with education and support for caregivers was perceived as viable and valuable for the informal caregivers.

Why it matters

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

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 38/100

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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy: journal h-index 67 (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	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	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	1 / 7	Cited 4 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 2.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Nina Lindelöf: h-index 20 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Umeå University: institution h-index 813 (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 39950207)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	38 / 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.

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 →