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 41 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Dementia produces a loss of independence to carry out the activities of daily life. The great demand for care that these people need usually falls on the family through informal care. This study aims to analyse the burden showed by the informal caregiver of a person with dementia. In addition, we analyse whether this burden present in informal caregivers could be related to abusive behaviour. We also study the relationship between the stage of the disease, the appearance of behavioural disorders and the level of burden in the caregiver using the Scales of Zarit, CASE and FAST. The data showed that 45.50 per cent of caregivers have light burden or burden. After the research, it was identified that the presence of behavioural disorders in patients with dementia showed a correlation with the increase in both the main caregiver burden and abuse. An increase in the level of burden is followed by an increase in the level of abuse (r = 0.844; p = 0.000). Furthermore, we analysed several conditions that could have a correlation with this burden and abuse. It was found that burden in the caregiver could be linked with the presence of behavioural disorders, like aggression (r = 0.577; p = 0.008) and irritability (r = 0.600; p = 0.005) at the moderate stage of the disease. On the other hand, there is a positive correlation between the probability that people with dementia suffer abuse in the moderate stage of the disease and the presence of aggression (r = 0.732; p = 0.000), lack of inhibition (r = 0.571; p = 0.009) and irritability (r = 0.827; p = 0.000). Taking this data into account, burden and abuse seem to be linked to the presence of behavioural disorders in patients with dementia in the moderate stage.

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

APA 7th

Gimeno, I., Val, S., & Moreno, M. J. C. (2021). Relation among Caregivers' Burden, Abuse and Behavioural Disorder in People with Dementia. International journal of environmental research and public health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031263

Vancouver

Gimeno I, Val S, Moreno MJC. Relation among Caregivers' Burden, Abuse and Behavioural Disorder in People with Dementia. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021. doi:10.3390/ijerph18031263. PMID: 33572503.

BibTeX

@article{gimeno2021-33572503,
  author  = {Gimeno, Ignacio and Val, Sonia and Moreno, María Jesús Cardoso},
  title   = {{Relation among Caregivers' Burden, Abuse and Behavioural Disorder in People with Dementia}},
  journal = {International journal of environmental research and public health},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.3390/ijerph18031263},
  pmid    = {33572503},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031263}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 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 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 23 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.23 of the 56 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of environmental research and public health)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 33572503)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 23 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 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.

Related studies in Caregiving

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 Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →