The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reducing caregiver stress with internet-based interventions: a systematic review of open-label and randomized controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
Objective The high level of stress associated with caring for others with medical conditions has been recognized for some time. Reducing caregiver stress can improve caregiver quality of life as well as improve the care they provide to loved ones. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of internet-based interventions to decrease caregiver stress. Materials and methods A comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE (1946–2013), Embase (1988–2013), PsycINFO (1987–2013), and CINAHL was conducted using terms related to caregiver and internet-based interventions. Internet-based interventions involving informal caregivers in an open-label or randomized controlled trial setting were included. A pair of raters independently reviewed all published abstracts. Data regarding participants, interventions, and outcomes were extracted and, for randomized trials, methodology quality was also reviewed. Results Eight open-label trials met the review criteria: three showed positive benefit in reducing caregiver stress, four were partially positive (some outcomes positive, others negative), and one was a negative study. Sixteen randomized trials met the review criteria: six showed positive benefit, five were partially positive, and five were negative. There were no clear patterns as to the variables (such as study duration and complexity of intervention) associated with better outcomes, although earlier studies typically had more negative outcomes. Discussion Internet-based interventions were mostly effective in reducing aspects of caregiver stress and improving their well-being. Further studies to assess outcomes for caregivers and their recipients’ health, different technology delivery methods, and the cost of such interventions are needed.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Online programs also have the potential to reduce distress and improve wellbeing in those who care for someone with a medical condition [33].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration
Higgins, J., Green, S. R., & Higgins, J. (2008) · Cited by 5,544
Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group
van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., & Bouter, L. (2003) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000065484.95996.af · Cited by 2,180
Caregiver Burden: A Clinical Review
Adelman, R. D., Tmanova, L. L., Delgado, D., Dion, S., & Lachs, M. S. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.304 · Cited by 2,002
Boots, L. M. M., de Vugt, M. E., van Knippenberg, R. J. M., Kempen, G. I. J. M., & Verhey, F. R. J. (2014) · International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/gps.4016 · Cited by 449
A Social Media–Based Physical Activity Intervention
Cavallo, D. N., Tate, D. F., Ries, A. V., Brown, J. D., DeVellis, R. F., & Ammerman, A. S. (2012) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.07.019 · Cited by 442
Kuijpers, W., Groen, W. G., Aaronson, N. K., & van Harten, W. H. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2281 · Cited by 391
Systematic review of information and support interventions for caregivers of people with dementia
Thompson, C. A., Spilsbury, K., Hall, J., Birks, Y., Barnes, C., & Adamson, J. (2007) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-7-18 · Cited by 374
The Effect of a Family Therapy and Technology-Based Intervention on Caregiver Depression
Eisdorfer, C., Czaja, S. J., Loewenstein, D., Rubert, M. P., Argüelles, S., Mitrani, V. B., & Szapocznik, J. (2003) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/43.4.521 · Cited by 314
Internet-Enabled Interactive Multimedia Asthma Education Program: A Randomized Trial
Krishna, S., Francisco, B. D., Balas, E. A., König, P., Graff, G. R., & Madsen, R. (2003) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.111.3.503 · Cited by 274
Rains, S. A., & Young, V. (2009) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01353.x · Cited by 265
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Biegel, 1991, Family caregiving in chronic illness: heart disease, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, and chronic mental illness
- Pingdom, 2012, Internet 2012 in numbers
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence for telehealth group-based treatment: a systematic review
Gentry, M. T., Lapid, M. I., Clark, M. M., & Rummans, T. A. (2019) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x18775855 · Cited by 200
Self-citationSherifali, D., Ali, M. U., Ploeg, J., Markle-Reid, M., Valaitis, R., Bartholomew, A., Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., & McAiney, C. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/10668 · Cited by 151
Wijma, E. M., Veerbeek, M., Prins, M., Pot, A. M., & Willemse, B. M. (2017) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2017.1348470 · Cited by 164
DeHoff, B. A., Staten, L. K., Rodgers, R. C., & Denne, S. C. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6722 · Cited by 143
Effectiveness of Digital Technologies to Support Nursing Care: Results of a Scoping Review
Hüter, K., Krick, T., Domhoff, D., Seibert, K., Wolf‐Ostermann, K., & Rothgang, H. (2020) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s286193 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, C., Kung, S., Rummans, T. A., Clark, M. M., & Lapid, M. I.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hu, Chunling
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-08-14
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- e1
- Pages
- e194-e209
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC11888335
- OpenAlex
- W2112114043
- Cited by
- 113
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7
- FWCI
- 1.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing care and research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Keywords
- caregiver stress, online intervention, informal caregivers, caregiver well-being, online health interventions, caregiver burden, intervention effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Health Education, Humans, Stress, Psychological, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Caregivers, Internet
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
