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.

71/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. There is evidence that home-based programmes of cognitive stimulation delivered by family caregivers may benefit both the person and the caregiver. However, no previous studies have evaluated caregiver-delivered CST.

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

APA 7th

Orrell, M., Yates, L., Leung, P., Kang, S., Hoare, Z., Whitaker, C., et al. (2017). The impact of individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (iCST) on cognition, quality of life, caregiver health, and family relationships in dementia: A randomised controlled trial. PLoS medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002269

Vancouver

Orrell M, Yates L, Leung P, Kang S, Hoare Z, Whitaker C, et al. The impact of individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (iCST) on cognition, quality of life, caregiver health, and family relationships in dementia: A randomised controlled trial. PLoS medicine. 2017. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002269. PMID: 28350796.

BibTeX

@article{orrell2017-28350796,
  author  = {Orrell, M. and Yates, L. and Leung, P. and Kang, S. and Hoare, Z. and Whitaker, C. and Burns, A. and others},
  title   = {{The impact of individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (iCST) on cognition, quality of life, caregiver health, and family relationships in dementia: A randomised controlled trial}},
  journal = {PLoS medicine},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1002269},
  pmid    = {28350796},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002269}
}

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.

Key findings

There is evidence that home-based programmes of cognitive stimulation delivered by family caregivers may benefit both the person and the caregiver.
However, no previous studies have evaluated caregiver-delivered CST.
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a home-based, caregiver-led individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) program in (i) improving cognition and quality of life (QoL) for the person with dementia and (ii) mental and physical health (well-being) for the caregiver.
Methods and findings A single-blind, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at eight study sites across the United Kingdom.

Why it matters

This trial tested a home-based cognitive stimulation programme delivered by family caregivers to people with dementia, measuring cognition, quality of life and caregiver health. It is a psychosocial intervention study, and the text does not report whether it slowed, stopped or prevented Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

Study designrandomized controlled trial
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 71/100

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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS medicine)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	PLoS Medicine: journal h-index 350 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	11 / 12	A 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	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 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	2 / 2	Randomized and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 168 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	15.3 citations a year over 11 year(s) since 2017
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 9.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 8 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 56 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Vasiliki Orgeta: h-index 37 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 17 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28350796)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	71 / 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 21.

Later studies that cite this one

8 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 7 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “controlled”

1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →