Use of a multiparty web based videoconference support group for family caregivers: Innovative practice
Open accessAbstract
This article describes a pilot of a weekly web based videoconference support group for five caregivers of persons with dementia. All participants reported positive views of the group and videoconference medium. Improvements in caregiver anxiety, depression, and physical health scores were observed. Depression scores remained the same with difficulties experienced by the caregiver increasing slightly. Self-efficacy for controlling upsetting thoughts and responding to disruptive behavior improved but worsened slightly for obtaining respite. We concluded that web based support was a positive experience for caregivers, providing them with an acceptable, feasible, low-cost technological alternative to in person support that reduced barriers to attendance by being available in homes.
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
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?
There was a trend for improvement in mental health outcomes.
“There was a trend for improvement in mental health outcomes.”
From Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
A common feature of low-quality studies was the use of mixed-methods with small sample sizes and limited detail on the method of integration of quantitative and qualitative data.
“A common feature of low-quality studies was the use of mixed-methods with small sample sizes and limited detail on the method of integration of quantitative and qualitative data [31,32,37,40,46].”
From Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
Overall, inexperience with videoconferencing or computer use did not appear to be a major problem; the majority of studies reported that over time participants found the technology easy to use and enjoyable.
“Overall, inexperience did not appear to be a major problem as the majority of studies reported that, over time, participants found the technology easy to use [32-35,40-42,46] and found videoconferencing enjoyable [42,44-46].”
From Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
Eight of the 15 studies reported few technical difficulties, whereas 7 reported a number of problems, 2 of which required substantial work hours to overcome.
“Various levels of technical problems were encountered; 8 of the 15 studies reported few difficulties [31,32,34-36,38,44-46], whereas 7 reported a number of problems [33,37,39,42,43,45,47], 2 of which required substantial work hours to overcome [39,47].”
From Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
Attendance rates ranged from 66% to 93.8%, with 6 studies reporting groups with rates of >80%.
“Attendance rates ranged from 66% to 93.8%, with 6 studies reporting groups with rates of >80% [32,35,36,46,47].”
From Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
Videoconferencing groups provided emotional and social support.
“and provided emotional and social support [32-35]”
From Telehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 64
- Authors
- Austrom, M. G., Geros, K. N., Hemmerlein, K., McGuire, S. M., Gao, S., Brown, S. A., Callahan, C. M., & Clark, D. O.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
- IU School of Medicine, IN, USA
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Austrom, Mary Guerriero
- Venue
- Dementia
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-07-25
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 682-690
- ISSN
- 1471-3012 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-2684
- PMC
- PMC4305486
- OpenAlex
- W2195620664
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 6.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Dementia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001108)
- National Institute on Aging (P30AG010133, P30AG024967)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Keywords
- family caregivers, online support groups, caregiver support, caregiver anxiety, caregiver depression, caregiver self-efficacy, respite, caregiver burden, home support
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Anxiety, Dementia, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Self-Help Groups, Caregivers, Self Efficacy, Internet, Videoconferencing
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
