ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Core needs screening items for informal caregivers of older adults: an online modified Delphi study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing family quality of life in families of people with brain injuries: a Delphi study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying the needs and risks of family caregivers for older adults can enable timely recognition and support for informal caregivers and older adults. However, the literature highlights substantial variation in how caregiver needs and risks are assessed. This study aimed to identify a set of core items to be included in a needs screening for informal caregivers of older adults through a modified Delphi approach.
methodsThe Delphi study engaged an expert panel in Hong Kong comprising three stakeholder groups: service providers, policymakers/think tanks, and academics. We started by identifying items reflecting caregiver needs through literature review and item generation meeting. The consensus-building process included two rounds of surveys where panel members rated the importance of items, followed by a feedback meeting. Panel members could suggest additional items in the first survey round, which were reviewed by an external panel of social workers before being added to the second survey round. Consensus was reached with ≥ 70% agreement. Informal caregivers were invited to review the items derived from the Delphi study to ensure comprehensibility.
resultsForty panel members joined the item generationmeeting, 40 completed the round 1 survey, 43 completed the round 2 survey, and 20 joined the feedback meeting. Ten informal Caregivers evaluated the face and content validity of the items. The total number of items in the final round dropped from 62 to 37. There were 27 caregiver-related items (e.g., care burden, caregiving self-efficacy, family relationship, social support, financial and job conflicts, physical health, mental health, and service utilization), six care recipient-related items (e.g., care recipient's characteristics), and four care dyad-related items (e.g., care dyad relationship and physical environment). Consensus was achieved for 35 items in the surveys and two items in the feedback meeting.
conclusionsThis set of core needs screening items can potentially reduce the heterogeneity of needs and risk assessments across studies and clinical practices and inform the development of a standardized need screening tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.