Cited by 354Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingNursing care and research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Disproportionate Impact Of Dementia On Family And Unpaid Caregiving To Older Adults

Open access

Abstract

The number of US adults ages sixty-five and older who are living with dementia is substantial and expected to grow, raising concerns about the demands that will be placed on family members and other unpaid caregivers. We used data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study and its companion study, the National Study of Caregiving, to investigate the role of dementia in caregiving. We found that among family and unpaid caregivers to older noninstitutionalized adults, one-third of caregivers, and 41 percent of the hours of help they provide, help people with dementia, who account for about 10 percent of older noninstitutionalized adults. Among older adults who receive help, the vast majority in both community and residential care settings other than nursing homes rely on family or unpaid caregivers (more than 90 percent and more than 80 percent, respectively), regardless of their dementia status. Caregiving is most intense, however, to older adults with dementia in community settings and from caregivers who are spouses or daughters or who live with the care recipient.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0536

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 354

Metadata

Authors
Kasper, J. D., Freedman, V. A., Spillman, B. C., & Wolff, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Urban Institute (US)
Venue
Health Affairs
Published
2015-10
Volume
34
Issue
10
Pages
1642-1649
ISSN
  • 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-5208
OpenAlex
W2298583712
Cited by
354
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6
FWCI
8.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (U01AG032947)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing care and research
Keywords
dementia, unpaid caregiving, family caregivers, older adults, caregiver burden, community-based care, residential care, spousal caregiving, daughters as caregivers, caregiving hours
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Dementia, Family, Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, 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