↓ Skip to main content

Effect of the WeCareAdvisor™ on family caregiver outcomes in dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 1,421)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
45 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of the WeCareAdvisor™ on family caregiver outcomes in dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12877-018-0801-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen C. Kales, Laura N. Gitlin, Barbara Stanislawski, H. Myra Kim, Katherine Marx, Molly Turnwald, Claire Chiang, Constantine G. Lyketsos

Abstract

Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are universal and associated with multiple negative outcomes. This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effect of using the WeCareAdvisor, an innovative web-based tool developed to enable family caregivers to assess, manage, and track BPSD. This RCT enrolled 57 dementia family caregivers from community and clinical settings in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Baltimore, Maryland. Participants were randomly assigned to immediate use of the WeCareAdvisor tool (WCA, n = 27) or a Waitlist control group (n = 30) that received the tool after a one-month waiting period. Outcomes for the caregiver and the person they were caring for were assessed at baseline (T0) and one-month followup for both the WCA (T1) and Waitlist control (T2) groups. Caregiver mean age was 65.9 ± 14.0 years old. About half (49%) were spouses. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups except for mean caregiver confidence which was higher in the control group (WCA 35.0 ± 10.0 vs. Waitlist control 39.7 ± 6.9, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the WCA and control groups in characteristics of the person with dementia. After their one-month of tool use (T1), WCA caregivers showed significant within group improvement in caregiver distress (- 6.08 ± 6.31 points, t = - 4.82, p < 0.0001) and behavioral frequency (- 3.60 ± 5.05, t = - 3.56, p = 0.002), severity (- 3.24 ± 3.87, t = - 4.19, p = 0.0003) and total behavioral score (- 6.80 ± 10.73, t = - 3.17, p = 004). In the same timeframe, Waitlist control caregivers showed a significant decrease in confidence (- 6.40 ± 10.30, t = - 3.40, p = 0.002). The WCA group showed greater improvement in distress compared to the Waitlist group (T0-T1; t = - 2.49, p = 0.02), which remained significant after adjusting for site and baseline distress. There were no significant between-group differences in caregiver confidence or other secondary outcomes. After their one month of tool use (T2), the Waitlist group also showed significant improvement in caregiver distress (- 3.72 ± 7.53, t = - 2.66, p = 0.013), stress (- 0.41 ± 1.02, t = - 2.19, p = 0.037), confidence (4.38 ± 5.17, t = 4.56, p < 0.0001), burden (- 2.76 ± 7.26, t = - 2.05, p = 0.05), negative communication (- 1.48 ± 2.96, t = - 2.70, p = 0.012) and behavioral frequency (- 1.86 ± 4.58, t = - 2.19, p = 0.037); distress remained significant after adjustment. In this pilot RCT, WCA use resulted in a significant decrease in caregiver distress. Future research will identify whether longer use of WCA can impact other caregiver and behavioral outcomes. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02420535 (Date of registry: 4/20/2015, prior to the start of the clinical trial).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 18%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 41 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 15%
Psychology 13 9%
Unspecified 4 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 41 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 379. 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 15 September 2018.
All research outputs
#28,351
of 13,516,274 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2
of 1,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,478
of 269,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,516,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 269,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them