Cited by 36Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNursing care and researchFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness

The effectiveness of psychosocial and behavioral interventions for informal dementia caregivers: meta-analyses and meta-regressions

Open access
Jütten, Linda Helena, Mark, Ruth Elaine, Wicherts, Jelte Michiel, Sitskoorn, Margriet Maria·2018·Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease

Abstract

Background: Many psychosocial and behavioral interventions have been developed for informal dementia caregivers. Because existing meta-analyses only focused on a limited number of interventions and outcomes, how effective these interventions are overall and which interventions components are associated with larger effects has yet to be explored. Objective: To provide a comprehensive meta-analysis of the effectiveness of psychosocial and behavioral interventions on burden, depression, anxiety, quality of life, stress, and sense of competence in informal dementia caregivers. In addition, we examined if interventions which utilized more sessions and/or were delivered personally (face-to-face) had larger effect sizes. In exploratory meta-regressions, we examined seven additional moderators. Methods: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017062555. We systematically searched the literature to identify controlled trials assessing the effect of psychosocial and behavioral interventions on the six outcome measures, for informal dementia caregivers. We performed six random effects meta-analyses, to assess the pooled effect sizes of the interventions. In addition, we performed separate meta-regressions, for each outcome, for each moderator. Results: The sample consisted of 60 studies. For all outcomes except anxiety, the pooled effects were small and in favor of the intervention group. No moderator was found to systematically predict these effects. There were no indications for publication bias or selection bias based on significance. Conclusion: Overall, the interventions yield significant (small) effects, independent of intervention characteristics. Future research should explore options to enhance the effectiveness of interventions aimed at assisting informal caregivers.

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 · 10.3233/jad-180508

Cites

95 of 95 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?

  • Underserved ethnic groups, such as the Māori group in New Zealand, First Nation groups in Australia, Black individuals in the US and UK, and Hispanic individuals in the US, have higher prevalence of potentially modifiable risk factors.

    “Underserved ethnic groups, such as the Māori group in New Zealand, First Nation groups in Australia, Black individuals in the US and UK, and Hispanic individuals in the US, have higher prevalence of potentially modifiable risk factors.(38-45)”

    From Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission (2024) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Exploratory predictors section examines characteristics of interventions for informal dementia caregivers, not the prevalence of modifiable risk factors across ethnic groups. Searches for the named groups and for ethnic differences in modifiable dementia risk factors found no passage in our copy addressing the claim. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jütten, L. H., Mark, R. E., Wicherts, J. M., & Sitskoorn, M. M.
Affiliations
Tilburg University (NL)
Corresponding author
Jütten, Linda Helena
Venue
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
Published
2018-09-18
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
149-172
ISSN
  • 1387-2877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-8908
OpenAlex
W2890394071
Cited by
36
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Alzheimer s Disease (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw (733050608)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Alzheimer Nederland
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
Keywords
dementia caregiving, informal caregivers
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Dementia, Humans, Regression Analysis, Social Support, Treatment Outcome, 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