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 58 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

This study aimed to examine the therapeutic mechanism of the benefit-finding therapeutic (BFT) intervention that used cognitive reappraisal and alternative thinking to construct positive aspects of caregiving (PAC), in a cluster-randomized controlled trial for Alzheimer caregivers. Forty two caregivers received BFT, whereas 87 received psychoeducation as control. Depressive symptoms and global burden were outcomes measured at baseline, postintervention, and 4- and 10-month follow-up. Mediators considered included PAC (measured by benefit word count to a qualitative measure) and three self-efficacies-controlling upsetting thoughts (SE-CUT), responding to disruptive behaviors, and obtaining respite. Using mixed-effects regression, we demonstrated that benefit-finding increased caregivers' PAC and SE-CUT, but that only SE-CUT uniquely predicted depressive symptoms and global burden longitudinally. Path analyses with bootstrapped confidence intervals, using full information maximum likelihood estimation to retain the whole sample with partial missing data, showed that SE-CUT change from baseline to postintervention mediated intervention effects on depressive symptoms, but not global burden, at both follow-ups. No mediation effects were found for PAC and the other self-efficacies. The BFT effect on depressive symptoms was partly accounted for by improvement in SE-CUT. The therapeutic mechanism for the effect on burden remained unknown. The study sheds light on the importance of actively promoting positive caregiver functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Key findings

Why it matters

This trial examined a benefit-finding group intervention for Alzheimer family caregivers, not a treatment for the disease itself. It found that improved self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts partly explained the intervention's effect on caregivers' depressive symptoms, which concerns caregiver support rather than treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 58/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 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 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited 3 of 7; Citations per year 2 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 56 of the 97 points it could be judged on, which is 58 of 100. Total 58 of 100.56 of the 97 points we could judge = 58 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on institution's track record, so that was left out: it earned 56 of the 97 points we could judge it on, which is 58 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychology and aging)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Psychology and Aging: journal h-index 243 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised 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 3 / 5 2022 — 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited 3 / 7 Cited 20 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 2 / 5 3.3 citations a year over 6 year(s) since 2022
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 4.4× 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 14 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author LINDA C. W. LAM: h-index 50 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34843329)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 56 / 97 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 56 of the 97 points we could judge it on is 58 out of 100.
Total 58 / 100 —

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

Read the original

May need a subscription Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 10 Oct 2026), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

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

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.

APA 7th

Cheng, S. T., Chan, W. C., Fung, H. H., & Lam, L. C. W. (2022). Self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts, but not positive gains, mediates the effects of benefit-finding group intervention for Alzheimer family caregivers. Psychology and aging. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000654

Vancouver

Cheng ST, Chan WC, Fung HH, Lam LCW. Self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts, but not positive gains, mediates the effects of benefit-finding group intervention for Alzheimer family caregivers. Psychology and aging. 2022. doi:10.1037/pag0000654. PMID: 34843329.

BibTeX

@article{cheng2022-34843329,
  author  = {Cheng, S. T. and Chan, W. C. and Fung, H. H. and Lam, L. C. W.},
  title   = {{Self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts, but not positive gains, mediates the effects of benefit-finding group intervention for Alzheimer family caregivers}},
  journal = {Psychology and aging},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1037/pag0000654},
  pmid    = {34843329},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000654}
}

Related studies in Treatments

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →