Home › Research › Caregiving
Respite Care for People With Dementia and Their Carers
Maayan N, Soares-Weiser K, Lee H. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014-01-16
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This Cochrane systematic review looked for solid evidence that respite care (temporary relief for caregivers) helps caregivers or people with dementia. It found only 4 small trials (753 participants total) and concluded there is currently no reliable evidence that respite care improves outcomes like caregiver burden or delays nursing home placement — but this reflects a shortage of well-designed studies, not proof that respite doesn't help.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Maayan, N., Soares-Weiser, K., & Lee, H. (2014). Respite Care for People With Dementia and Their Carers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Vancouver
Maayan N, Soares-Weiser K, Lee H. Respite Care for People With Dementia and Their Carers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014.
BibTeX
@article{maayan2014-7ba38cc8,
author = {Maayan, N. and Soares-Weiser, K. and Lee, H.},
title = {{Respite Care for People With Dementia and Their Carers}},
journal = {Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews},
year = {2014}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Only 4 randomized trials with 753 total participants met inclusion criteria; results could not be statistically pooled due to differences in design
- The 3 trials comparing respite care to no respite care found no significant benefit on any caregiver outcome, including institutionalization rates or caregiver burden
- Overall quality of evidence was rated 'very low'; only one study reported any outcome for the person with dementia
Why it matters
Only 4 small trials with 753 total participants met inclusion criteria, and the 3 trials comparing respite care to no respite care found no significant benefit on any caregiver outcome. The review concluded there is currently no reliable evidence that respite care helps, reflecting a shortage of well-designed studies rather than proof that it does not help.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Study designsystematic-review
- Participants753
- Effect sizeNo significant benefit found on any caregiver outcome
- Evidence strengthNull-result
Limitations
Only 4 small trials met inclusion criteria; evidence quality was rated 'very low'; this reflects a shortage of well-designed studies, not proof that respite care doesn't help.
How this study scored 65/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for indexed in PubMed 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, 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 40 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 65 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “null-result” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 753 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | Effect described in words only — scores zero |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 40 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 65 out of 100. |
| Total | 65 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Caregiving
Also tagged “caregiver-financial-support-and-burden”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver-financial-support-and-burden”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.