↓ Skip to main content

A meta-review of stress, coping and interventions in dementia and dementia caregiving

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
279 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
449 Mendeley
Title
A meta-review of stress, coping and interventions in dementia and dementia caregiving
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0280-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. J. Gilhooly, M. L. M. Gilhooly, M. P. Sullivan, A. McIntyre, L. Wilson, E. Harding, R. Woodbridge, S. Crutch

Abstract

There has been a substantial number of systematic reviews of stress, coping and interventions for people with dementia and their caregivers. This paper provides a meta-review of this literature 1988-2014. A meta-review was carried out of systematic reviews of stress, coping and interventions for people with dementia and their caregivers, using SCOPUS, Google Scholar and CINAHL Plus databases and manual searches. The meta-review identified 45 systematic reviews, of which 15 were meta-analyses. Thirty one reviews addressed the effects of interventions and 14 addressed the results of correlational studies of factors associated with stress and coping. Of the 31 systematic reviews dealing with intervention studies, 22 focused on caregivers, 6 focused on people with dementia and 3 addressed both groups. Overall, benefits in terms of psychological measures of mental health and depression were generally found for the use of problem focused coping strategies and acceptance and social-emotional support coping strategies. Poor outcomes were associated with wishful thinking, denial, and avoidance coping strategies. The interventions addressed in the systematic reviews were extremely varied and encompassed Psychosocial, Psychoeducational, Technical, Therapy, Support Groups and Multicomponent interventions. Specific outcome measures used in the primary sources covered by the systematic reviews were also extremely varied but could be grouped into three dimensions, viz., a broad dimension of "Psychological Well-Being v. Psychological Morbidity" and two narrower dimensions of "Knowledge and Coping" and of "Institutionalisation Delay". This meta-review supports the conclusion that being a caregiver for people with dementia is associated with psychological stress and physical ill-health. Benefits in terms of mental health and depression were generally found for caregiver coping strategies involving problem focus, acceptance and social-emotional support. Negative outcomes for caregivers were associated with wishful thinking, denial and avoidance coping strategies. Psychosocial and Psychoeducational interventions were beneficial for caregivers and for people with dementia. Support groups, Multicomponent interventions and Joint Engagements by both caregivers and people with dementia were generally found to be beneficial. It was notable that virtually all reviews addressed very general coping strategies for stress broadly considered, rather than in terms of specific remedies for specific sources of stress. Investigation of specific stressors and remedies would seem to be a useful area for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 449 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 449 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 12%
Student > Bachelor 52 12%
Researcher 33 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 7%
Other 79 18%
Unknown 133 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 85 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 69 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 12%
Social Sciences 30 7%
Neuroscience 15 3%
Other 45 10%
Unknown 151 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,266,503
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#536
of 3,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,922
of 349,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#7
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.