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.

61/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Objectives To examine the cost-effectiveness of a randomized, clinical trial of a home-based intervention for caregivers of people with dementia. Design This cost-effectiveness analysis examined Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregivers Health (REACH II), a multisite, randomized, clinical trial, from June 2002 through December 2004, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Nursing Research, of a behavioral intervention to decrease caregivers' stress and improve management of care recipient behavioral problems. Setting Community-dwelling dementia caregiving dyads from the Memphis REACH II site. Participants Of Memphis' random sample of 55 intervention and 57 control black and white dyads, 46 in each arm completed without death or discontinuation. Family caregivers were aged 21 and older, lived with the care recipient, and had provided 4 or more hours of care per day for 6 months or longer. Care recipients were cognitively and functionally impaired. Intervention(s) Twelve individual sessions (9 home sessions and 3 telephone sessions) supplemented by five telephone support-group sessions. Control caregivers received two "check in" phone calls. Measurements Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the additional cost to bring about one additional unit of benefit (hours per day of providing care). Results At 6 months, there was a significant difference between intervention caregivers and control caregivers in hours providing care (P=.01). The ICER showed that intervention caregivers had 1 extra hour per day not spent in caregiving, at a cost of $5 per day. Conclusion The intervention provided that most scarce of caregiver commodities--time. The emotional and physical costs of dementia caregiving are enormous, and this intervention was able to alleviate some of that cost.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: High

This is a trial. A home-based behavioral intervention for dementia caregivers gave intervention caregivers one extra hour per day not spent caregiving, at a cost of $5 per day. This addresses caregiver support and cost, not the treatment, cure, or prevention of Alzheimer's disease itself.

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

Nichols, L. O., Chang, C., Lummus, A., Burns, R., Martindale-Adams, J., Graney, M. J., et al. (2008). The cost-effectiveness of a behavior intervention with caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01569.x

Vancouver

Nichols LO, Chang C, Lummus A, Burns R, Martindale-Adams J, Graney MJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a behavior intervention with caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01569.x. PMID: 18179480.

BibTeX

@article{nichols2008-18179480,
  author  = {Nichols, L. O. and Chang, C. and Lummus, A. and Burns, R. and Martindale-Adams, J. and Graney, M. J. and Coon, D. W. and Czaja, S. and others},
  title   = {{The cost-effectiveness of a behavior intervention with caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2008},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01569.x},
  pmid    = {18179480},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01569.x}
}

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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
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

Results At 6 months, there was a significant difference between intervention caregivers and control caregivers in hours providing care (P=.01).
The ICER showed that intervention caregivers had 1 extra hour per day not spent in caregiving, at a cost of $5 per day.

Why it matters

A home-based behavioral intervention for dementia caregivers gave intervention caregivers one extra hour per day not spent caregiving, at a cost of $5 per day. This addresses caregiver support and cost, not the treatment, cure, or prevention of Alzheimer's disease itself.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 61/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 59 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 61 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized 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	1 / 5	2008 — within 20 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)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 116 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	5.8 citations a year over 20 year(s) since 2008
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 6 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	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	1 / 3	University of Miami: institution h-index 998 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 18179480)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	59 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 59 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 61 out of 100.
Total	61 / 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. Showing 12 of 14.

Later studies that cite this one

6 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Disparities from nearby years

Also in Disparities

98 studies in the library are filed under Disparities with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Disparities hub.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →