Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31890613›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2019

eHealth interventions to support caregivers of people with dementia may be proven effective, but are they implementation-ready?

Hannah L Christie, Jennifer L Martin, Jade Connor, Huibert J Tange, Frans R J Verhey, Marjolein E de Vugt, Martin Orrell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Caregiver Experiences With an Internet-Delivered Insomnia Intervention: SHUTi-CARE Trial Primary Qualitative Analysis.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hannah L ChristieDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Jennifer L MartinNIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, The Institute of Mental Health, Nottingham University Innovation Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Jade ConnorDepartment of International Health, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Huibert J TangeDepartment of Family Practice, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Frans R J VerheyDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Marjolein E de VugtDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Martin OrrellInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Maastricht University · NLNIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA variety of health services delivered via the Internet, or "eHealth interventions," to support caregivers of people with dementia have shown evidence of effectiveness, but only a small number are put into practice. This study aimed to investigate whether, how and why their implementation took place.

methodsThis qualitative study followed up on the 12 publications included in Boots et al.'s (2014) widely cited systematic review on eHealth interventions for informal caregivers of people with dementia, in order to explore further implementation into practice. Publicly available online information, implementation readiness (ImpRess checklist scores), and survey responses were assessed.

findingsTwo interventions were freely available online, two were available in a trial context, and one was exclusively available to clinical staff previously involved in the research project. The remaining seven were unavailable. All scores on the ImpRess checklist were at 50% or lower of the total, indicating that the interventions were not ready to implement at the time of the Boots et al. (2014) review, though some interventions were scored as more implementation-ready in subsequent follow-up publications. Responses to the survey were received from six out of twelve authors. Key learnings from the survey included the importance of the involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the process, as well as the flexible adaptation and commercialization of the intervention.

conclusionsIn general, low levels of implementation readiness were reported and often the information necessary to assess implementation readiness was unavailable. The only two freely available interventions had long-term funding from aging foundations. Authors pointed to the involvement of financial gatekeepers in the development process and the creation of a business model early on as important facilitators to implementation. Future research should focus on the factors enabling sustainable implementation.

Indexed as

CaregiverDementiaeHealthImplementationInternet

Identifiers

PMID31890613
PMCPMC6926245
OpenAlexW2964124976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.