Cited by 139Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNursing care and researchIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving

Dementia care in rural and remote settings: A systematic review of informal/family caregiving

Innes, Anthea, Morgan, Debra, Kostineuk, Julie·2011·Maturitas

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the available evidence from the published scientific literature on informal/family dementia care in rural and remote settings to assess the current state of knowledge, identify support implications, and make recommendations for future research.Methods A systemic review of the literature indexed in ISI Web of Knowledge, PsychInfo, Medline, Healthstar, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Sociological Abstracts was conducted. Data were extracted from papers meeting inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed papers that focused on dementia or Alzheimer's Disease (AD), and examined informal or family caregiving in relation to persons with AD or dementia in remote or rural locations.Results The search identified 872 articles for review, reduced to 72 after removing duplicates and articles not meeting inclusion criteria. Of the 72 remaining, 26 are included in this review focusing on informal/family caregiving. A previous review focused on the 46 studies on formal/paid care. Four themes that correspond to the current state of knowledge about rural informal/family dementia caregiving in the 26 included studies were: service use, carer experience, support and education, and rural perceptions of dementia.Conclusions Despite the growing body of evidence over the 20 years of this review, and the widespread interest in family dementia caregiving generally, much of the research exploring family caregiving in rural areas focuses on the experience, use and barriers to formal service provision. There is limited work examining the experiences of rural caregivers and their education and support needs. More research is needed about the impact of rurality on caregiving and the education and support needs of rural informal family caregivers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.10.002

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Innes, A., Morgan, D., & Kostineuk, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
Venue
Maturitas
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
34-46
ISSN
0378-5122 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099169488
Cited by
139
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2011-06-01)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Maturitas (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Keywords
dementia care, Alzheimer's disease, informal care, family caregivers, rural health, remote areas, caregiver experiences, caregiver support, caregiver education, service utilization, rurality
MeSH terms
Dementia, Family, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Rural Population, United States, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review