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.

42/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Caregiving

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

A total of 258 usernames posted on the forum since its inception. There were 893 posts; 583 (65.3%) were coded as providing social support. All 5 Social Support Behavior Code categories were present in the forum posts. Informational support was the most common type of social support provided on the forum, which mostly involved providing suggestions for caregiving and coping strategies and sharing personal experiences that provide CDC-specific knowledge or insight. This was followed by emotional support, which consisted mostly of expressing shared understanding and empathy for caregivers in their unique situation of CDC and providing expressions of care for the recipient's well-being. Esteem, network, and tangible support were less common, though they included providing validation and relief of blame to other caregivers, typically in decision-making regarding cancer treatment; reminding caregivers that others were available on the forum for support; and expressing willingness to answer questions about their CDC caregiving experience. This study demonstrates the use and value of a CDC-specific online forum as a source of social support for carers of people with CDC, facilitating users' access to CDC-specific information and peer support. The relatively new forum shows promise as a free and accessible resource that can contribute to addressing carers' informational and peer support needs.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

The record lists 893 participants. This content analysis of an online forum for caregivers of people with both dementia and cancer found that most posts provided social support, most commonly informational support. Reported effect size: 65.3%.

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

Price, M. L., Surr, C., Gough, B., Howe, D. M., & Ashley, L. (2025). The Provision of Social Support in an Online Support Forum for Caregivers of People With Comorbid Dementia and Cancer: Content Analysis Study. JMIR Cancer. https://doi.org/10.2196/72217

Vancouver

Price ML, Surr C, Gough B, Howe DM, Ashley L. The Provision of Social Support in an Online Support Forum for Caregivers of People With Comorbid Dementia and Cancer: Content Analysis Study. JMIR Cancer. 2025. doi:10.2196/72217. PMID: 41022373.

BibTeX

@article{price2025-41022373,
  author  = {Price, Mollie Louise and Surr, Claire and Gough, Brendan and Howe, David M. and Ashley, Laura},
  title   = {{The Provision of Social Support in an Online Support Forum for Caregivers of People With Comorbid Dementia and Cancer: Content Analysis Study}},
  journal = {JMIR Cancer},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.2196/72217},
  pmid    = {41022373},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2196/72217}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 893 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “65.3%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

A total of 258 usernames posted on the forum since its inception.
There were 893 posts; 583 (65.3%) were coded as providing social support.
All 5 Social Support Behavior Code categories were present in the forum posts.
Informational support was the most common type of social support provided on the forum, which mostly involved providing suggestions for caregiving and coping strategies and sharing personal experiences that provide CDC-specific knowledge or insight.
This was followed by emotional support, which consisted mostly of expressing shared understanding and empathy for caregivers in their unique situation of CDC and providing expressions of care for the recipient's well-being.

Why it matters

This content analysis of an online forum for caregivers of people with both dementia and cancer found that most posts provided social support, most commonly informational support. It describes peer support use and does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention.

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

Study details

Participants893
Effect size65.3%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 42/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR Cancer)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	JMIR Cancer: journal h-index 40 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	893 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	2 / 7	Cited 5 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 5.2× 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 5 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Laura Ashley: h-index 20 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	0 / 3	Leeds Beckett University: institution h-index 220 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41022373)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	42 / 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.

Related studies in Caregiving from nearby years

Also tagged “nursing”

995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “nursing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Caregiving

See all studies in Caregiving →