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.

40/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

About 65% of caregivers used at least one support service, with 52% utilizing home-based services and 52% community-based services. Caregivers in the most deprived rural areas were significantly less likely to use any support services (OR = 0.45; 95% CI [0.23, 0.89]) and community-based services (OR = 0.26; 95% CI [0.26, 0.86]) compared to those in the least deprived rural areas. No significant associations were found between Census region and any type of support service utilization. Service utilization differences within rural areas highlight the need for nuanced, area-specific interventions to enhance support service accessibility for caregivers in deprived rural areas, improving caregiving outcomes. Future research should further investigate area-level variations and their interactions with individual factors to better understand barriers faced by rural caregivers. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04428112, identifier NCT04428112.

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

APA 7th

Santoyo‐Olsson, J., Covinsky, K. E., Cheng, J. Q., Gallagher-Thompson, D. E., & Yank, V. A. (2025). Utilization of home- and community-based services among rural family caregivers of persons with dementia: the role of the area deprivation index. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1688161

Vancouver

Santoyo‐Olsson J, Covinsky KE, Cheng JQ, Gallagher-Thompson DE, Yank VA. Utilization of home- and community-based services among rural family caregivers of persons with dementia: the role of the area deprivation index. Frontiers in Public Health. 2025. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1688161. PMID: 41164840.

BibTeX

@article{santoyoolsson2025-41164840,
  author  = {Santoyo‐Olsson, Jasmine and Covinsky, Kenneth E. and Cheng, Jing Qiu and Gallagher-Thompson, Dolores E. and Yank, Veronica A.},
  title   = {{Utilization of home- and community-based services among rural family caregivers of persons with dementia: the role of the area deprivation index}},
  journal = {Frontiers in Public Health},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.3389/fpubh.2025.1688161},
  pmid    = {41164840},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1688161}
}

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.

Key findings

About 65% of caregivers used at least one support service, with 52% utilizing home-based services and 52% community-based services.
Caregivers in the most deprived rural areas were significantly less likely to use any support services (OR = 0.45; 95% CI [0.23, 0.89]) and community-based services (OR = 0.26; 95% CI [0.26, 0.86]) compared to those in the least deprived rural areas.
No significant associations were found between Census region and any type of support service utilization.
Service utilization differences within rural areas highlight the need for nuanced, area-specific interventions to enhance support service accessibility for caregivers in deprived rural areas, improving caregiving outcomes.
Future research should further investigate area-level variations and their interactions with individual factors to better understand barriers faced by rural caregivers.

Why it matters

This study found that family caregivers of people with dementia in the most deprived rural areas were less likely to use support services compared to those in less deprived areas. It highlights the need for better access to services but does not address treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Effect sizeOR = 0.45; OR = 0.26
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 40/100

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

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in Public Health)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Frontiers in Public Health: journal h-index 174 (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	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.3× 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	0 / 4	Cited 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Veronica A. Yank: h-index 26 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Stanford University: institution h-index 2,684 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41164840)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	40 / 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 Risk factors

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →