Cited by 139Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAttachment and Relationship DynamicsNursing care and research

Caregiver-Recipient Closeness and Symptom Progression in Alzheimer Disease. The Cache County Dementia Progression Study

Open access
Norton, M. C., Piercy, K. W., Rabins, P. V., Green, R. C., Breitner, J. C. S., Ostbye, T., Corcoran, C., Welsh-Bohmer, K. A. +2 more·2009·The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences

Abstract

Applying Rusbult's investment model of dyadic relationships, we examined the effect of caregiver-care recipient relationship closeness (RC) on cognitive and functional decline in Alzheimer's disease. After diagnosis, 167 participants completed up to six visits, observed over an average of 20 months. Participants were 64% women, had a mean age of 86 years, and mean dementia duration of 4 years. Caregiver-rated closeness was measured using a six-item scale. In mixed models adjusted for dementia severity, dyads with higher levels of closeness (p < .05) and with spouse caregivers (p = .01) had slower cognitive decline. Effect of higher RC on functional decline was greater with spouse caregivers (p = .007). These findings of attenuated Alzheimer's dementia (AD) decline with closer relationships, particularly with spouse caregivers, are consistent with investment theory. Future interventions designed to enhance the caregiving dyadic relationship may help slow decline in AD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geronb/gbp052

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The MMSE has been criticized for significant floor effects when studying persons with severe dementia.

    “Some measures (e.g., MMSE) have been criticized for differential performance in classifying the cognitive status of individuals from different ages and educational backgrounds, and for significant floor effects when studying persons with severe dementia (reviewed in (43)).”

    From Progression of Cognitive, Functional, and Neuropsychiatric Symptom Domains in a Population Cohort With Alzheimer Dementia: The Cache County Dementia Progression Study (2011) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Outcomes section (page unavailable) describes administering the MMSE to participants with advanced dementia and occasionally discontinuing it because of poor comprehension. It does not discuss floor effects. Searches for floor effects and the MMSE’s ability to detect further decline in advanced dementia found no passage supporting the attributed criticism. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The MMSE has been criticized for differential performance in classifying cognitive status of individuals from different ages and educational backgrounds.

    “Some measures (e.g., MMSE) have been criticized for differential performance in classifying the cognitive status of individuals from different ages and educational backgrounds, and for significant floor effects when studying persons with severe dementia (reviewed in (43)).”

    From Progression of Cognitive, Functional, and Neuropsychiatric Symptom Domains in a Population Cohort With Alzheimer Dementia: The Cache County Dementia Progression Study (2011) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Outcomes section (page not provided) describes the MMSE as a cognitive screening test, while the Analysis and Cognitive Trajectory sections examine age and education as predictors of MMSE scores or decline. None of these passages criticizes the MMSE for classifying cognitive status differently across age or educational groups. Searches for differential classification, age and education bias, and MMSE limitations found no such statement in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. de Vugt , M. E. , Stevens , F. , Aalten , P. , Lousberg , R. , Jaspers , N. , Winkens , I. , Jolles, J. , & Verhey , F. R. ( 2004 ). Do caregiver management strate- gies infl uence patient behaviour in dementia? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 19 , 85 -92 .
  2. Fitzmaurice , G. M. , Laird , N. M. , & Ware , J. H. ( 2004 ). Applied longitudi- nal analysis . New York : Wiley-Interscience .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Norton, M. C., Piercy, K. W., Rabins, P. V., Green, R. C., Breitner, J. C. S., Ostbye, T., Corcoran, C., Welsh-Bohmer, K. A., Lyketsos, C. G., & Tschanz, J. T.
Affiliations
  • Utah State University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
Published
2009-06-29
Volume
64B
Issue
5
Pages
560-568
ISSN
  • 1079-5014 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5368
OpenAlex
W2160616246
Cited by
139
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series B (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG031272, AG027841, AG-011380, AG031272, AG018712, AG021136, R01AG011380, R01AG021136, R01AG018712, K24AG027841)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, cognitive decline, functional decline, spousal caregivers, dyads, dementia progression
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Family Relations, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Marriage, Mental Status Schedule, Neuropsychological Tests, Parent-Child Relations, Cohort Studies, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, Disease Progression, Spouses

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