Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37488491›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2023

A scoping review of intensive longitudinal methods in informal caregivers of people with dementia.

P Gérain, E Wawrziczny, P Antoine

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

P GérainDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Educational and Psychological Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium. pierre.gerain@vub.be.
E WawrzicznySCALAB - UMR 9193, University of Lille, Lille, France.
P AntoineSCALAB - UMR 9193, University of Lille, Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe daily life of informal caregivers assisting individuals with dementia widely varies throughout the day and week. As an answer, an increasing number of researchers have used intensive longitudinal methods (ILMs) such as diary studies, experience sampling methods, or ecological momentary assessment. OBJECTIVES AND

methodsThe present scoping review aims at synthesizing the use of ILMs in informal dementia caregivers to clarify what is currently done and how, as well as what remains unaddressed.

resultsThe screening process identified 48 studies from 22 different datasets. Synthesis of these studies showed the diversity of devices and uses of ILMs in informal care, including the exploration of associations between variables or accompanying an intervention. ILMs showed the important variability of caregiving phenomena, as well as the important association of momentary stress and well-being. Gaps were nevertheless identified, such as transparency in the construction of the tool or the absence of focus on emotions and dyads.

conclusionsFor now, this field of research remains in its infancy and does not seem to have reached its full potential as it has in other fields. Nevertheless, it appears that ILMs are promising tools for informal dementia caregivers as they contribute to understanding the complexity of their daily life, with changing resources and challenges. Future directions include focusing more on (emotion) regulation, temporal lags, and the use of ILMs in interventional designs.

trial registrationThe present review was registered on OSF (osf.io/b2qr4).

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaEmotionsHumansBurdenEcological momentary assessmentExperience samplingFamily carersInformal caregiversIntensive longitudinal methods

Identifiers

PMID37488491
PMCPMC10367249

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.