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 52 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

This German study challenged the common assumption that keeping a person with dementia at home is always cheaper than nursing home care. Looking at total costs to society, including the value of unpaid family caregiving, community care was actually more expensive once the researchers accounted for how impaired patients were. The extra cost came almost entirely from the large amount of unpaid informal care that families provide at home.

Key findings

Why it matters

This German study found that, looking at total costs to society including the value of unpaid family caregiving, community care was actually more expensive than nursing home care once the researchers accounted for how impaired patients were. The extra cost came almost entirely from the large amount of unpaid informal care that families provide at home.

Study details

Limitations

Small sample, especially for nursing home residents (n=48); the cross-sectional design cannot establish causality, and cost estimates depend heavily on the chosen method for valuing unpaid informal caregiver time.

How this study scored 52/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 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 0 of 6; 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 0 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 32 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 52 of 100. Total 52 of 100.32 of the 62 points we could judge = 52 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded and 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 32 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Directors Association)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” 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 / 4 176 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 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 32 / 62 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total 52 / 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.

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

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. The record names 16 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.

APA 7th

König, H. H., Leicht, H., Brettschneider, C., Bachmann, C., Bickel, H., Fuchs, A., et al. (2014). The Costs of Dementia From the Societal Perspective: Is Care Provided in the Community Really Cheaper Than Nursing Home Care? Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

Vancouver

König HH, Leicht H, Brettschneider C, Bachmann C, Bickel H, Fuchs A, et al. The Costs of Dementia From the Societal Perspective: Is Care Provided in the Community Really Cheaper Than Nursing Home Care? Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2014.

BibTeX

@article{konig2014-13a8e35b,
  author  = {König, H. H. and Leicht, H. and Brettschneider, C. and Bachmann, C. and Bickel, H. and Fuchs, A. and Jessen, F. and Köhler, M. and Luppa, M. and Mösch, E. and Pentzek, M. and Werle, J. and Weyerer, S. and Wiese, B. and Scherer, M. and Maier, W.},
  title   = {{The Costs of Dementia From the Societal Perspective: Is Care Provided in the Community Really Cheaper Than Nursing Home Care?}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Medical Directors Association},
  year    = {2014}
}

Related studies in Costs and economics

Also tagged “care”

996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →