↓ Skip to main content

Impact of caring for persons with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia on caregivers’ health outcomes: findings from a community based survey in Japan

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters


66 Dimensions

Readers on

300 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.
Impact of caring for persons with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia on caregivers’ health outcomes: findings from a community based survey in Japan
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0298-y
Pubmed ID

Amir Goren, William Montgomery, Kristin Kahle-Wrobleski, Tomomi Nakamura, Kaname Ueda


This study assessed how family caregivers for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or dementia in Japan differed from non-caregivers in characteristics and health outcomes (i.e., comorbidities, health-related quality of life [HRQoL], productivity, and resource use). Caregivers were hypothesized to experience significantly poorer outcomes than non-caregivers. Data were combined from the 2012 and 2013 National Health and Wellness Survey in Japan (n = 60000). Caregivers for adult relatives with AD or dementia were compared with non-caregivers on: comorbidities (including Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) cutoff scores suggesting presence/absence of major depressive disorder (MDD)), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), SF-36v2-based HRQoL, and healthcare resource utilization. Sociodemographic characteristics, health characteristics and behaviors, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) scores were compared across groups. Propensity matching, based on scores generated from a logistic regression predicting caregiving, was used to match caregivers with non-caregivers with similar likelihood of being caregivers. Bivariate comparisons across matched groups served to estimate outcomes differences due to caregiving. Among 55060 respondents, compared with non-caregivers (n = 53758), caregivers (n = 1302) were older (52.6 vs. 47.5 years), more frequently female (53 % vs. 49 %), married/partnered, frequent alcohol drinkers, current smokers, exercisers, and not employed, and they averaged higher CCI scores (0.37 vs. 0.14), all p < 0.05. Propensity scores incorporated sex, age, body mass index (BMI), exercise, alcohol, smoking, marital status, CCI, insured status, education, employment, income, and children in household. A greedy matching algorithm produced 1297 exact matches, excluding 5 non-matched caregivers. Health utilities scores were significantly lower among caregivers (0.724) vs. non-caregivers (0.764), as were SF-36v2 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores. Caregivers vs. non-caregivers had significantly higher absenteeism, presenteeism-related impairment, overall work impairment (25.8 % vs. 20.4 %, respectively), and activity impairment (25.4 % vs. 21.8 %), more emergency room and traditional provider visits (7.70 vs. 5.35) in the past six months, and more frequent MDD (14 % vs. 9 %), depression, insomnia, anxiety, and pain. Those providing care for patients with AD or dementia in Japan experienced significantly poorer HRQoL and greater comorbid risk, productivity impairment, and resource use. These findings inform the need for greater support for caregivers and their patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 300 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 17%
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 14%
Researcher 30 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 70 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 58 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 17%
Psychology 32 11%
Social Sciences 28 9%
Neuroscience 9 3%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 89 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 April 2017.
All research outputs
of 15,151,743 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
of 1,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 264,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,151,743 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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