Loading

Annals of Community Medicine and Practice

A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Community Interventions on the Burden, Depression, and Anxiety of Family Caregivers for Elderly Individuals with Dementia

Research Article | Open Access | Volume 10 | Issue 1

  • 1. Development of Social School, Tianjin University of Technology, China
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Zhihui Wei, Tianjin University of Technology, Liqizhuang Street, Xiqing District, Tianjin, China.
Abstract

Background: As society ages rapidly, the prevalence of dementia among the elderly is increasing, which imposes a significant burden on families and society. Family caregivers, who primarily support elderly individuals with dementia, experience various pressures, including physical, psychological, economic, and social stresses during long-term care. These pressures make them particularly vulnerable to depression and other psychological disorders. Consequently, alleviating the stress and depressive symptoms of these family caregivers has emerged as a pressing societal concern. Communities, serving as essential links between families and the broader society, offer unique opportunities for support and intervention.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the impact of community interventions on the burden, anxiety, and depression experienced by family caregivers of elderly individuals with dementia residing at home.

Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted in databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO until January 2025. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria and extracted data separately. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the methodology recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: The meta-analysis of 23 studies showed that community interventions positively affect the burden, depression, and anxiety of family caregivers for elderly individuals with dementia, as well as reduce caregiving stress (SMD = -0.3; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; p < .001), depression (SMD = -0.6; 95% CI-0.75 to -0.47; p < .001), and anxiety (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI -0.5 to -0.14; p < .001). Additional findings suggest that these interventions may also enhance the quality of life.

Conclusion: Community-based supportive interventions significantly improve depressive symptoms, perceived stress, and anxiety among family caregivers of individuals with dementia and potentially benefit the care recipients themselves. Both online and offline interventions are effective, suggesting that future research should explore hybrid models that integrate these approaches to optimize the health outcomes of family caregivers and their care recipients

Keywords
  • Community Intervention
  • Dementia Meta-Analyses
  • Family Caregiver
Citation

Zhihui WEI, Yue HAN (2025) A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Community Interventions on the Burden, Depression, and Anxiety of Family Caregivers for Elderly Individuals with Dementia. Ann Community Med Pract 10(1): 1065.

INTRODUCTION

As the global population ages and life expectancy increases, the number of elderly individuals is rising, many of whom experience cognitive decline. Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a progressively worsening neurodegenerative disorder, is characterized by progressive memory loss, significant declines in daily living skills, and impaired temporal and spatial orientation [1]. Currently, most caregivers are unpaid family members, who support individuals with reduced daily living capabilities, especially those with dementia. In the United States, approximately 15 million Americans provide unpaid care for persons with dementia (PWD). Conversely, in China, only 1% of elderly people with dementia receive formal care, such as hiring nannies or hourly workers, while the remaining 99% rely on informal care [2]. This study includes spouses, children, children’s spouses, and other relatives of patients with dementia, irrespective of whether they cohabit with the patient. However, caregivers for individuals residing in institutions were not considered. These caregivers endure significant economic [3], physical [4], social, and psychological burdens [5], while caring for those with dementia. The role is emotionally and physically demanding, often necessitating additional support systems. Caring for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia involves numerous challenges, potentially leading to substantial caregiver burden. Caregivers often experience elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and chronic stress, which further deteriorate their overall physical and mental health [6]. The pressure primarily arises from the need for constant proximity due to the patients’ poor mental condition [7]. The constant vigilance required to manage the unpredictable behaviors and needs of elderly individuals with dementia can be overwhelming, often resulting in feelings of helplessness and burnout. The psychological burden primarily stems from self-imposed pressure due to societal biases. Socially, caregivers may feel isolated as they dedicate more time and energy to caregiving responsibilities, leading to reduced social activities and support networks [8]. It is estimated that primary caregivers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients dedicate approximately 70 hours per week to caregiving tasks [9]. Moreover, the financial pressure of providing care, including medical expenses, medication costs, and potential income loss due to reduced working hours or job abandonment, adds another layer of complexity. Given these challenges, comprehensive support services such as respite care, counseling, and community resources are crucial for alleviating some of the burdens on unpaid caregivers. Caregiving for individuals with AD or other dementias can lead to physical and psychological morbidity, including caregiver burden, depression, anxiety, stress, and strain. These phenomena not only threaten family caregivers but also negatively impact the health of elderly individuals with dementia. Therefore, there is an urgent need for interventions aimed at family caregivers, which can improve their mental state and further enhance their ability to care for elderly individuals with dementia, thereby improving the quality of life for these seniors.

Community interventions, although not specifically defined, typically involve multifaceted strategies and measures implemented at the community level to enhance the health and well-being of community members. Four models of community intervention exist: treating the community as the site for interventions, targeting the community, utilizing the community as a resource, and engaging the community as an agent [10]. When viewed as a location, community interventions are often geographically defined, with interventions being implemented within community institutions such as neighborhoods, schools, churches, workplaces, volunteer organizations, or other groups. These interventions might involve city-wide strategies, delivered through mass media or other methods. They can include educational strategies or other approaches targeting individuals, families, social networks, organizations, and public policies. In summary, an approach that targets a specific community group, employs planned strategies, assesses effectiveness, and offers sustainable benefits can be classified as a community intervention. Such interventions aim to enhance both individual health and community development.

In recent years, psychological interventions for caregivers of dementia patients have gained popularity and shown beneficial outcomes in enhancing the mental health of caregivers [11-13]. Research suggests that caregivers primarily need informational support, instrumental support, and social companionship. Although many studies have focused on intervention methods for family caregivers, research on the impact of community interventions on family caregivers is still limited. This study assesses the effects of community interventions on the psychosocial well-being of family caregivers of dementia patients through a systematic literature review, focusing on mental health indicators such as depression, burden, and stress. The included studies are RCTs aimed at reducing caregiver stress, depression, and other health issues.

While extensive research exists on interventions for family caregivers, studies on community-based interventions are relatively scarce. This study evaluates the impact of community interventions on the psychosocial well-being of family caregivers of individuals with dementia, analyzing the effects on mental health indicators such as depression, burden, and stress among informal caregivers. The review includes RCTs aimed at reducing caregiver stress, depression, and other physical and mental health issues. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of community interventions on burden, anxiety, and depression among family caregivers of dementia patients living at home, identify types of intervention measures for informal caregivers, and report on the effectiveness of these measures in supporting family caregivers.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria

Studies must meet the following criteria to be included:

(1) The design of the study must be a RCT; (2) Subjects must be family caregivers of dementia patients residing at home, within community settings; (3) Intervention measures should primarily be implemented at the community level, including, but not limited to, educational courses, psychological support groups, and skill training; (4) Study results must include measurement data on mental health indicators such as caregiver burden (e.g., Zarit Burden Interview), depression (e.g., CES-D scale), and anxiety (e.g., HADS-A scale); (5) Studies must provide pre- and post-intervention data for assessing the effectiveness of the interventions.

Study selection

The criteria for study selection are identical to the inclusion criteria, ensuring consistency in the selection process.

Risk of bias in individual studies

Studies included in this review have assessed the risk of bias using methods recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The risks are summarized in a risk of bias table, evaluating seven criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias. Each criterion’s risk of bias is classified as ‘low risk’, ‘unclear’, or ‘high risk’ [14].

Data analysis

When studies use different scales to measure outcomes, SMDs with 95% CIs will be used. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I², with I²>50% indicating significant heterogeneity. If no significant heterogeneity is found, a fixed-effects model will be employed to calculate the pooled effect size; otherwise, a random-effects model will be used.

Search terms

Thisstudytargetsfamilycaregiversofelderlyindividuals with dementia, using keywords related to dementia such as ‘dementia,’ ‘Alzheimer’s disease,’ and ‘cognitive impairment,’ alongside terms from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and EMBASE TREE index. Keywords for family caregivers include ‘informal caregiver’ and ‘family caregiver.’ In domestic contexts, terms such as ‘caregiving’ and ‘nursing’ are employed. This review includes English articles published between 2000 and 2025 that address the impact of community interventions on the burden, anxiety, and depression of these caregivers. The search strategy is (community intervention) AND (dementia OR Alzheimer’s disease) AND (informal caregiver or family caregiver) AND (burden or depression or anxiety).

Aim

The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether community interventions affect the burden, anxiety, and depression of family caregivers of dementia patients living at home. It seeks to (1) identify the types of interventions provided to these caregivers within the community and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in supporting them.

RESULTS

Study selection

Initially, 2390 records were identified through database searches, with an additional 6 records found through references in the screened literature, totaling 2396 records. Duplicate records and clearly irrelevant documents were removed. Subsequently, 62 articles were assessed for eligibility, with reasons for exclusion, such as ‘lack of control trials’ and ‘incorrect population (e.g., incorrect intervention methods)’, clearly stated. Ultimately, 25 studies were included in this systematic review, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Figure showing the 25 studies which were included in this systematic review

Figure 1: Figure showing the 25 studies which were included in this systematic review

Study characteristics

The studies varied in size, with participant numbers ranging from 30 to 299, and the duration of interventions extended from four weeks to eighteen months. Geographical distribution of the studies included ten in the United States [15-23] Table 1,

Table 1: Studies showing the Geographical distribution according to year, country, sample size.

Study Indicator (IG/CG)

Year Data

Sample size

 

Country

 

Mean age

intervention measures

Total time

 

Outcome indicator

Data Collection Points

T

C

 

 

Bruno

Kajiyama

 

 

 

2013

 

 

IG: n=75 CG: n=75

 

 

 

America

 

 

57.02±12.53/

55.22±11.31

iCare: A web-based training program featuring multiple

action-oriented components, such as relaxation exercises, where participants sequentially complete modules and develop personal

action plans.

 

Accessed websites containing dementia information

but lacking skill

development content

 

 

Three months

 

 

burden:

PSS depression: CES - D

 

 

Baseline Three months

 

Burcu Akpinar

Soylemez

 

 

2016

 

IG: n=35 CG:n=35

 

 

Turkey

 

61.2 ±13.1/

62.3 ±12.8

The PLST intervention includes four home visits, introducing PLST theory, along with subsequent telephone support and a care manual.

 

 

Routine care

 

 

six months

 

burden (CBI) depression (BDI)

Baseline Three months six months

 

 

 

 

Cindy E.FRIAS

 

 

 

 

2020

 

 

 

IG:n=86 CG:n=74

 

 

 

 

Spain

 

 

 

64.7±11.5/

62.4±14.3

INFOSA - DEM intervention, including 5 training sessions/ information courses; the intervention consists of five consecutive training sessions/ information courses held over one week, each session lasting approximately 90 minutes.

 

 

 

 

Routine care

 

 

 

 

six months

 

 

 

burden (Zarit Burden Interview)

 

 

Baseline Three months six months

 

 

D.J.Done

 

 

2001

 

IG:n=30

CG:n=15

 

 

England

 

 

NA

 

Participate in communication skills training workshops led by speech therapists

Distribute a manual addressing communication

issues and providing

recommendations.

 

 

Six weeks

 

burden (relatives stress scale)

 

Baseline Six

weeks

 

Franziska Meichsner

 

2019

 

IG:n=15 CG:n=15

 

German

 

63.00 ±9.40/

61.17 ±10.14

 

8-week internet-based cognitive

behavioral intervention

 

Wait for 5 months before intervention

 

Eight

weeks

Depressive symptoms (CES-D); caregiver burden (VAS);

caregivers’ coping (CGS).

Baseline Eight weeks Five months

 

 

 

 

 

Geoffrey

 

 

 

 

 

2008

 

 

 

 

IG:n=16 CG:n=17

 

 

 

 

 

America

 

 

 

 

65.75±13.71/

61.00±9.60

 

 

 

 

 

Participated in FITT-D intervention,

Obtain documents containing information on local resources such as support group lists and adult day care centers, along with educational materials from the Alzheimer's Association.

 

 

 

 

Twelve months

 

 

 

burden (Zarit Burden Interview), depression (Geriatric Depression Scale)

 

 

 

 

Baseline Twelve months

 

 

 

Helen C. Kales

 

 

 

2018

 

 

IG:n=27

CG:n=30

 

 

 

America

 

 

total

65.9±14.0

Utilizing the WeCareAdvisor (WCA) tool, an innovative web-based instrument designed to assist family caregivers in assessing, managing, and tracking behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.

 

 

No special intervention

 

 

One months

 

 

depression (CES - D) burden (Zarit burden scale)

 

 

Baseline One months

 

 

 

 

 

Hyejin Kim

 

 

 

 

 

2022

 

 

 

 

IG:n=24

CG:n=11

 

 

 

 

 

America

 

 

 

 

74.37±10.14/

77.00±5.78

 

 

Participate in music interventions (listening, singing, playing instruments, etc.) conveniently at any time and place, with weekly telephone follow-ups by a research coordinator.

 

 

No intervention before the study ends; information can be obtained after completion of the study

 

 

 

 

Eight months

Perceived stress and coping (Swedish version of the 14-item Perceived Stress Scale, calculating PSS-13 total score and subscale scores for stress and coping after removing item 12),

depression (Patient Health

Questionnaire - 9)

 

 

 

 

Baseline Eight months

 

 

Jeremy A Tanner

 

 

 

2015

 

 

IG:n=106

CG:n=183

 

 

 

America

 

 

66.3±14.1/

67.5±13.0

 

 

Undergo a 18-month care

coordination intervention,

Accept the results of the written needs assessment, intervention recommendations, and resource guidelines.

 

 

Eighteen months

 

Burden (Zarit Burden Interview) Depression (Geriatric Depression Scale)

 

Baseline nine months eighteen months

 

Kenneth W.

Hepburn

 

 

2001

 

IG:n=72

CG:n=45

 

 

America

 

 

total65±13.6

Undergo 14 hours of community training, which includes information provision, concept development, role clarification, belief clarification, and mastery-oriented coaching.

 

Undergo training after waiting for 5 to 6 months

 

Seven

weeks

Burden (Zarit Burden Interview)Depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale)

 

Baseline five

months

 

 

 

Kristine N.

Williams

 

 

 

 

2019

 

 

 

IG:n=42 CG:n=41

 

 

 

 

America

 

 

 

64.6±12.2/

63.9±13.7

 

 

 

 

IG?FamTechCare intervention

Telephone support, providing guidance based on caregivers' recollections, with the expert team reviewing videos post-intervention and providing feedback.

 

 

 

Three months

 

Depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale}

CES - D (Burden) Modified

Zarit Burden Scale

 

 

Baseline one months three months

 

Laura N. Gitlin

 

2010

 

IG:n=137 CG:n=135

 

America

 

67.1±12.3/

65.7±12.2

Up to 11 home and telephone contacts conducted by healthcare professionals

 

No intervention

 

Weeks 16-24

Burden (Zarit Burden 12 - item measure)Depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale)

Baseline 16

weeks 24 weeks

 

 

Manuel Mart?´n- Carrasco

 

 

 

 

2009

 

 

 

IG:n=60 CG:n=55

 

 

 

 

Spain

 

 

 

55±13.3/

61.6±13.8

 

 

Participate in a Psychological Education Intervention Program (PIP), which includes 8 individual sessions of 90 minutes each.

Receive standard care, including information on AD progression, patient- specific information, informational brochures, and community resources.

 

 

 

Four months

 

 

 

Burden (Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview)

 

 

Baseline four months ten months

 

 

 

Marco M.Blom

 

 

 

2015

 

 

IG:n=149

CG:n=96

 

 

 

Netherlands

 

 

 

NA

 

Enroll in the online course 'Mastery over Dementia' (MoD), which includes 8 lessons and 1 intensive session, with coaching guidance and feedback on assignments.

Receive electronic

newsletters (e-bulletins)

containing practical information on dementia care.

 

 

 

six months

Depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale)Anxity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale)Burden (Self - Perceived Pressure from Informal Care scale)

 

Baseline three months six months

 

Martin Berwig

 

2017

 

IG:n=47 CG:n=45

 

German

 

72.3/73.98

Participate in the DE-REACH intervention, which includes 12 bi- weekly sessions (9 home visits and 3 telephone calls).

 

Routine care

 

six months

 

Burden (Zarit Burden Inventory)

Baseline six months nine months

 

Miguel Madruga

 

 

2020

 

IG:n=25

CG:n=23

 

 

Spain

 

61.0±8.9/

59.3±8.0

 

Engage in 60-minute home physical

exercise sessions twice a week.

 

 

Routine care

 

Nine months

Depression (Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form 15 - item version) Burden (Zarit Burden Interview)

 

Baseline nine months

 

Natasha Beauchamp

 

 

2005

 

IG:n=150

CG:n=149

 

 

America

 

46.9(12.2)/

46,9(12.2)

 

Dealing with Engage in 60-minute home physical exercise sessions twice a week.

 

 

Routine care

 

One months

Burden (Caregiver Strain Instrument)

Depression (CES - D)

Anxity (State–Trait Anxiety

Inventory)

 

Baseline one months

 

 

 

Saeed Pahlavanzadeh

 

 

 

 

2010

 

 

 

IG:n=25 CG:n=25

 

 

 

 

Iran

 

 

 

42.88±15.13/

46.56±14.51

Participate in family education training programs, which include five 90-minute sessions per week conducted through lectures, group discussions, and Q&A sessions, covering knowledge related to dementia and care methods, with course CDs provided.

 

 

 

 

No intervention

 

 

 

Five

weeks

 

 

 

Burden (Zarit's caregiver burden scale)

 

 

 

Baseline five weeks

 

 

 

Sanford Finkel

 

 

 

2007

 

 

IG:n=23 CG:n=23

 

 

 

America

 

 

 

total64.6

 

A technology-based psychological education intervention, consisting of two home visits and twelve sessions conducted via a computer-telephone integration system (CTIS)

Receive basic educational materials, two follow-up phone calls, and an invitation to attend a seminar after six months of evaluation.

 

 

 

six months

Depression (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale)Burden (Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist)

 

 

Baseline six months

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Su Jung Lee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IG:n=38 CG:n=40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Korean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56.13±12.51/

72.28±8.76

 

 

 

 

 

Community Dementia Caregiver Intervention (CDCI) includes training on dementia knowledge such as types, symptoms, and diagnosis, as well as caregiving skills like communication methods and patient ability identification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only accepts standard medical care

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eight

weeks

The primary outcome measure is caregiver burden, including personal stress and role stress, assessed using the Short Zarit Burden Interview (SZBI). Secondary outcome measures include depressive symptoms evaluated with the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and attitudes towards caring for dementia assessed using the Dementia Attitudes Scale (DAS).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baseline

Eight weeks

 

 

Svetlana I.

 

 

2009

 

IG:n=30 CG:n=30

 

 

Russia

 

61.5±17.6/

59.3±12.8

 

Undergo 10/66 caregiver intervention, which includes five half-hour sessions per week

 

Only accepts standard medical care

 

Five

weeks

Burden (Zarit Carer Burden Interview) Psychological distress (SRQ 20) Quality of life (WHOQOL - BREF)

 

Baseline six months

 

 

Timothy Kwok

 

 

2013

 

IG:n=18

CG:n=20

 

Hong Kong,

China

 

61.0±8.9/

59.3±8.0

Undergo 12 sessions of telephone- based psychological education intervention, each approximately 30 minutes long

Provide DVDs containing information on dementia care education

 

Three months

Burden (Zarit Burden Interview) Self-care efficacy (Revised Scale for Caregiving Self - efficacy)

 

Baseline three months

 

 

 

 

Yi-Chien Liu

 

 

 

 

2023

 

 

 

IG:n=137 CG:n=147

 

 

 

Tai Wan, China

 

 

 

79.9±8.2/

86.3±5.7

 

After receiving 3 hours of massage

training, caregivers provide

30-minute full-body manual massages to patients three times a week at home.

 

Caregivers learned the massage protocol after the study ended, while patients did not receive any intervention.

 

 

 

Eight

weeks

Depressive symptoms (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia) Aggressive behavior (Cohen - Mansfield Agitation Inventory) Caregiver perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale)

 

 

Baseline four weeks Eight weeks

three in Spain [24-26], two in German [27,28], two in China (one each in Taiwan [29], and Hong Kong[30]), and one each in Russia [31], Iran [32], England [33], the Netherlands [34], South Korea [35], and Turkey [36]. All studies provided clear inclusion and exclusion criteria and employed various intervention methods, including internet technology and skill training. All interventions were community-based, thus classified as community interventions.

Most studies featured control groups experiencing conditions similar to those of their respective intervention groups, with the experimental groups receiving additional community interventions. Some remaining studies involved control groups that received different interventions from those received by the intervention groups. These control groups were provided with DVDs [30], brochures [33], or documents [16], to ensure access to basic information on dementia care and local resources. For example, in studies by Hessel et al. and Williams et al., caregivers in the control group received telephone support, while Blom et al. provided electronic newsletters (e-bulletins) [34]. Kajiyama and colleagues offered caregivers in the control group access to websites containing dementia information, but notably, these did not include skill training [15]. All included studies assessed the impact of community interventions on improving the health outcomes of caregivers for elderly individuals with dementia.

Risk of bias assessment

Out of the 23 RCTs evaluated, most reported random allocation. However, only one study explicitly stated that the groups were not randomly assigned.[35]. Some studies [21], clearly outlined methods for random grouping, while others [32], did not provide details on group formation, potentially increasing bias risk. The nature of community interventions often prevents blinding of participants, affecting the quality of the experimental design. Only one study explicitly mentioned participant blinding [36]. About half of the studies ensured blinding of outcome assessors, thus reducing their risk of detection bias. Attrition bias was deemed high in only one study, due to inadequate explanation of dropout reasons and their potential impact on results [17, 24, 25,31,33]. Most studies showed no significant selective reporting bias, as primary and secondary outcome measures were clearly defined in the methods section and comprehensively reported in the results section. Other biases were rated as high risk due to small sample sizes [32]. The risk of bias for each study is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Figure showing the 25 studies which were included in this systematic review

Figure 2: Figure showing the 25 studies which were included in this systematic review

Meta-Analysis Results of Interventions among Family Caregivers Burden

This analysis included nineteen community-based supportive interventions assessing the burden of family caregivers, involving 1,932 participants. Most burden measurements utilized the Zarit Burden Interview [16- 18,20,21,24-26,30-32,37], indicating a higher score corresponds to a greater caregiving burden. Additionally, the Caregiver Strain Instrument and PSS were employed [15,19,29]. Given the use of different scales, SMDs were employed to represent the pooled effect size. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant overall effect of the experimental intervention. Although the SMD was relatively small compared to depression, it still demonstrated a significant difference between the experimental and control groups, indicating the effectiveness of the intervention (n=1932; SMD=-0.3; 95%CI: -0.39 to -0.21; p<.001). A total of 13 studies involving 1132 participants were conducted offline, while the remaining seven studies involved online interventions. In the offline intervention studies, the results showed a significantly beneficial impact on the burden of caregivers (n=1132; SMD=-0.36; 95%CI: -0.48 to -0.24; P<0.001; I2=34, fixed-effects model). In studies on online interventions, it was also observed that community interventions have a positive impact on burden (n=878, SMD=–0.2; 95%CI –0.34 to –0.07; P=.003; I2=0%, fixed-effects model; Figure 3).

Figure 3 Meta-Analysis Results of Interventions among Family Caregivers Burden

Figure 3: Meta-Analysis Results of Interventions among Family Caregivers Burden

Depressive symptoms

Ten studies assessed the impact of community interventions on family caregivers’ depressive symptoms using various methods: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [15,18,20,22,27,34], Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia [29], Geriatric Depression Scale [17] (4), Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form 15-item version [26], and Self Reporting Questionnaire [31]. Due to the use of different scales for measurement, SMD was employed to represent the pooled effect size. The meta- analysis revealed that caregivers in the community-based intervention group showed significant improvement in depressive symptoms compared to the control group, indicating a highly statistically significant overall effect of the experimental intervention (n=942; SMD=-0.6; 95%CI- 0.75 to-0.47; p<.001). The direction ofthedifferencefavored the experimental group, suggesting the effectiveness of the intervention measures. Given the distinct nature of online and offline interventions, which can impact their effectiveness, community interventions were categorized by form into online and offline interventions for subgroup analysis. In the subgroup analysis of online interventions, results from six studies [15,18, 20,22,27,34] indicated that these digital approaches significantly alleviated caregivers’ depression (n=507; SMD=–0.27; 95% CI –0.44 to -0.09; P=.003; I2=0%). In the subgroup analysis of offline interventions, results from five studies [26,29,31,35,38], showed that these interventions also improved caregivers’ depressive symptoms (n=513; SMD=–0.94; 95% CI –1.67 to -0.22; P=.01; I2=0%; random-effects model; Figure. 4 & 5).

Figure 4 Assessment of the impact of community interventions on family caregivers’ depressive symptoms

Figure 4: Assessment of the impact of community interventions on family caregivers’ depressive symptoms

Figure 5 Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analyses

Figure 5: Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analyses

Anxiety

Two studies examined anxiety symptoms using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [34], (Blom) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [22], to assess changes in caregivers’ anxiety levels. The analysis revealed that, compared to standard care, community interventions significantly reduced anxiety among caregivers in the intervention group (n=474, SMD=-0.32, CI=-0.5to-0.14; p<.001, I²=0%).

Publication Bias and Sensitivity Analyses

Assessment of the impact on burden status in 19 studies was symmetrically distributed showing no outcome bias but indicating heterogeneity due to some studies falling outside the 95% CI. The visual inspection of the funnel plot did not reveal evidence of potential publication bias. The funnel plot is displayed as follows.

DISCUSSION

This article reviews 24 studies on the impact of community interventions on caregivers of dementia patients, excluding one study from the meta-analysis due to lack of specific numerical data. Unlike previous articles, this paper specifically focuses on the effects on family caregivers and examines various interventions from a community perspective. The meta-analysis of the included studies reveals that community interventions positively affect caregiver burden, depression, and anxiety. Both online and offline interventions effectively reduce caregiver burden, depressive symptoms, and anxiety.

This systematic review reveals that interventions at the community level yield substantial improvements in the mental well-being of dementia caregivers by significantly diminishing depression symptoms, burden stress, and anxiety. These enhancements likely originate from the supportive characteristics of such interventions, which offer improved access to resources that bolster caregivers’ understanding of dementia and enhance their caregiving capabilities. Consequently, this elevates their confidence in managing the condition and mitigates adverse emotional states. Within the community environment, caregivers engage with peers facing similar challenges, fostering an exchange of experiences, obstacles, and insights, which enhances emotional solidarity and collective support. Such interactions effectively reduce feelings of isolation and psychological distress among caregivers, thereby lessening depressive symptoms.

In the detailed subgroup analysis of this review, we assessed the effects of online versus offline interventions within the community-based approaches. Findings suggest that both modalities positively impact depression, stress perception, and anxiety levels. Nonetheless, offline interventions demonstrated greater effect sizes, indicating enhanced benefits for mental health. Such interventions facilitate more precise observation of caregivers’ behaviors and expressions, allowing for more accurate evaluations of their psychological conditions and offering tailored guidance. Tailored guidance is vital in caregiver interventions due to the broad variability in caregivers’ baseline understanding of the disease and coping mechanisms.

The American Geriatrics Society underscores that high-quality healthcare hinges on delivering services that respect and cater to the individual’s needs, preferences, and values—a principle crucial not only to medical care but also pivotal in boosting patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes [39]. Further, several guidelines [40-42], provide essential support and recommendations for managing dementia, advocating for highly personalized care that considers the patient’s interests, abilities, personal values, and previous life experiences. Plans should be adaptable based on the severity and nature of the symptoms to provide the most appropriate care.

Face-to-face interventions enable immediate responses to caregivers’ educational needs and on-the- spot corrections. For instance, in Kenneth W. Hepburn’s research, during the initial stages of concept development, professionals could elaborate on dementia’s effects on cognitive abilities and tailor coping strategies based on real-time caregiver feedback [37]. Cindy E. Frias’s research involved a series of five sequential training sessions, approximately 90 minutes each, utilizing audiovisual aids and promoting experience sharing among caregivers [24]. This setup allowed caregivers to pose questions and discuss their unique perspectives and circumstances, enabling professionals to provide more customized advice and support.

However, existing studies have not definitively proven the efficacy of community interventions. Dementia is a prolonged disease progression, and caregivers’ needs and psychological conditions continually evolve. Studies on community interventions often fail to monitor caregivers’ situations over extended periods post-implementation— such as one year or longer—thereby neglecting to evaluate sustained reductions in caregiving burdens or the stability of psychological states. This gap in understanding the long- term effects of interventions limits our ability to ascertain their continued effectiveness.

Community interventions, which target caregivers of dementia patients, constitute an emerging area of research. Nevertheless, these interventions vary widely across different communities due to the absence of standardized methods and guidelines. For instance, the measurement scales applied in such interventions are not consistent, which necessitates further exploration of these discrepancies.

In 23 studies, researchers investigated the effects of these interventions on caregivers. Martin Berwig reported that, six months after the interventions, caregivers in the intervention group exhibited statistically significant enhancements in the mental component of their quality of life, as measured by the SF-12, whereas improvements in the physical component showed a positive trend but were not statistically significant. In contrast, Svetlana I.’s findings revealed improvements in the quality of life for the intervention group, though these did not achieve statistical significance. On the other hand, research by Manuel Martín-Carrasco demonstrated that family caregivers in the intervention group noted a marked improvement in quality of life when compared to their counterparts in the control group. Despite the variability in outcomes among these studies, the overarching potential benefits of community interventions for caregivers are evident. Future research should focus on refining these interventions to enhance their effectiveness and address prevailing challenges.

Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research

Our research findings indicate that community-based supportive interventions are beneficial for caregivers of dementia patients. Although this paper suggests that offline interventions may be more effective than online ones, the benefits of online interventions should not be underestimated. Therefore, when implementing community intervention measures, it is advantageous to integrate both online and offline interventions to leverage their respective strengths. Personalized interventions are recommended, tailored to users’ preferences, needs, personal circumstances, and the dementia severity. An online Q&A function is advisable on internet platforms to mitigate the lack of timely personalized feedback and guidance in online interventions. The primary aim of providing community support services to elderly family caregivers is to enhance the well-being of dementia caregivers. Consequently, future research should not only investigate the impact on family dementia caregivers but also examine its effects on various caregiver types. As dementia is a long-term condition, caregivers’ needs and psychological states evolve over time. Communities should establish long-term tracking mechanisms, consistently assess the impact of interventions on caregivers and patients, and promptly revise intervention plans to maintain long-term intervention efficacy.

Strengths and Limitations

This systematic review is notable for its focus on the impact of community interventions on family caregivers of dementia patients. The study is specifically targeted, examining Community Dementia Care Interventions (CDCI) and their effects on community support programs for these caregivers. The research question is clear and possesses substantial real-world relevance, addressing a crucial aspect of community intervention and family caregiving. Additionally, only studies with robust research designs were included, such as RCTs, quasi-experimental designs, and non-randomized control trials. Statistical methods, including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), were employed to compare scores between the intervention and control groups in areas such as caregiving burden, depression, and attitudes towards dementia, offering a thorough assessment of the intervention’s effectiveness. The research process and data analysis methods are scientifically robust and logical, ensuring the production of high-quality evidence. However, the study does exhibit limitations. Firstly, since community interventions are not a uniform type of intervention, variations across different communities, based on available resources and population size, and the use of diverse measurement scales complicate the determination of the most effective intervention for family caregivers. Secondly, research on specific outcomes, like anxiety, is scarce, and no additional subgroup analyses were performed. Therefore, expanded research is essential to bolster the reliability of the conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, through a meta-analysis of 23 RCTs, established that: (1) Community interventions positively influence the burden, depression, and anxiety of family caregivers, significantly reducing caregiving stress (SMD =-0.3; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; p < .001), depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.6, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.47; p < .001), and anxiety (SMD = -0.32, CI -0.5 to -0.14; p < .001). (2) Community interventions have been effective, whether conducted online or offline, with evidence suggesting offline interventions may be marginally more effective than online ones. Future research could explore integrating online and offline community interventions. (3) Some studies show that post-intervention, caregivers’ psychological health- related quality of life improves, while physical health- related quality of life shows an upward trend or does not achieve significant levels, with outcomes varying across studies.

REFERENCES
  1. Cooley S, Goodwin-Beck M. Strategies in the care of veterans with dementia. Special care programs for people with dementia, 1996: 101-118.
  2. Schneekloth U, Wahl H. Autonomy and need of help for older people in private homes: care arrangements, dementia, care offerings. Selbständigkeit und Hilfebedarf bei älteren Menschen in Privathaushalten: Pflegearrangements, Demenz, Versorgungsangebote, 2008. 2.
  3. Dickinson C, Johanne D, Grant G, Louise H, Shannon R, Louise R. Psychosocial intervention for carers of people with dementia: What components are most effective and when? A systematic review of systematic reviews. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017; 29: 31-43.
  4. Gilhooly KJ, Gilhooly MLM, Sullivan MP, McIntyre A, Wilson L, Harding E, et al. A meta-review of stress, coping and interventions in dementia and dementia caregiving. BMC Geriatr. 2016; 16: 106.
  5. Brodaty H, Green A, Koschera A. Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for caregivers of people with dementia. J Am Geriatrics Society. 2003; 51: 657-664.
  6. Papastavrou E, Kalokerinou A, Papacostas SS, Haritini T, Panagiota S. Caring for a relative with dementia: family caregiver burden. J Adv Nurs. 2007; 58: 446-457.
  7. Brodaty H. and Donkin M. Family caregivers of people with dementia. Dialogues Clin Neurosci, 2009. 11: 217-228.
  8. Burns A, Rabins P. Carer burden in dementia. Int J Geriatric Psychiatr. 2000; 15: 9-13.
  9. Harrow BS, Diane FM, Aaron BM, Marcia GO, David WC, Steven HB, et al. Variation in cost of informal caregiving and formal-service use for people with Alzheimer’s desease. Am J Alzheimer’s Disease Other Dementias®. 2004; 19: 299-308.
  10. Murphy JW. Community-based interventions: Philosophy and action. 2014: Springer.
  11. Moniz-Cook E. Vernooij-Dassen M, Woods R, Verhey F, Chattat R, Vugt MD, et al. A European consensus on outcome measures for psychosocial intervention research in dementia care. Aging Ment Health. 2008; 12: 14-29.
  12. Vernooij-Dassen M, Moniz-Cook E, Verhey F, Chattat R, Woods B. Bridging the divide between biomedical and psychosocial approaches in dementia research: the 2019 INTERDEM manifesto. Aging Ment Health. 2021; 25: 206-212.
  13. Olazarán J, Reisberg B, Clare L, Cruz I, Peña-Casanova J, Teodoro DS, et al. Nonpharmacological therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review of efficacy. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2010; 30: 161-178.
  14. Higgins JP, Altman DG. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. 2008: 187-241.
  15. Kajiyama B, Thompson LW, Eto-Iwase T, Yamashita M, John DM, Tzuang YM, et al. Exploring the effectiveness of an internet-based program for reducing caregiver distress using the iCare Stress Management e-Training Program. Aging Ment Health. 2013; 17: 544-554.
  16. Tremont G. Davis JD, Bishop DS, Richard HF. Telephone-Delivered Psychosocial Intervention Reduces Burden in Dementia Caregivers. Dementia (London). 2008; 7: 503-520.
  17. Tanner JA, Betty SB, Johnston D, Hess E, Jeannie-Marie L, Gitlin LN, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a community-based dementia care coordination intervention: effects of MIND at Home on caregiver outcomes. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2015; 23: 391-402.
  18. Kales HC, Gitlin LN, Stanislawski B, Myra Kim H, Katherine M, Turnwald M. et al. Effect of the WeCareAdvisor on family caregiver outcomes in dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2018; 18: 113.
  19. 19 Kim H, Engström G, Theorell T, Hallinder H, Emami A. In-home online music-based intervention for stress, coping, and depression among family caregivers of persons with dementia: A pilot study. Geriatr Nurs. 2022; 46: 137-143.
  20. Williams KN. Perkhounkova Y, Shawet CA, Hein M, Vidoni ED, Coleman CK. Supporting Family Caregivers With Technology for Dementia Home Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Innov Aging. 2019; 3: igz037.
  21. Gitlin LN, Laraine W, Dennis MP, Hodgson N, Hauck WW. Targeting and managing behavioral symptoms in individuals with dementia: a randomized trial of a nonpharmacological intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010; 58: 1465-1474.
  22. Beauchamp N, Irvine AB, Seeley J, Johnson B. Worksite-based internet multimedia program for family caregivers of persons with dementia. The Gerontologist. 2005; 45: 793-801.
  23. Finkel S, Czaja SJ, Schulz R, Martinovich Z, Harris C, Pezzuto D. E-care: A telecommunications technology intervention for family caregivers of dementia patients. Am J Geriartic Psychiatr. 2007; 15: 443-448.
  24. Frias CE, Risco E, Zabalegui A. Psychoeducational intervention on burden and emotional well-being addressed to informal caregivers of people with dementia. Psychogeriatrics. 2020; 20: 900-909.
  25. Martin-Carrasco M, Martín MF, Valero CP, Millán PR, García CI, Montalbán SR, et al. Effectiveness of a psychoeducational intervention program in the reduction of caregiver burden in Alzheimer’s disease patients’ caregivers. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009; 24: 489-99.
  26. Madruga M, Gozalo G, Prieto J, Domínguez PR, Gusi N. Effects of a home-based exercise program on mental health for caregivers of relatives with dementia: a randomized controlled trial. Int Psychogeriatr. 2021; 33: 359-372.
  27. Meichsner F, Theurer C, Wilz G. Acceptance and treatment effects of an internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral intervention for family caregivers of people with dementia: A randomized-controlled trial. J Clin Psychol. 2019; 75: 594-613.
  28. Berwig M, Heinrich S, Spahlholz J, Hallensleben N, Brähler E. Individualized support for informal caregivers of people with dementia - effectiveness of the German adaptation of REACH II. BMC Geriatr. 2017; 17: 286.
  29. Liu YC, Yu-Ting L, Hsuen-Ying P, Chen-Yi S. Effectiveness of a home- based, family caregiver-administered manual massage intervention in managing dementia symptoms and reducing caregiver stress: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Geriatr Nurs. 2023; 53: 162-169.
  30. Kwok T, Wong B, Ip I, Chui K, Young D, Ho F. Telephone-delivered psychoeducational intervention for Hong Kong Chinese dementia caregivers: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Clin Interv Aging. 2013; 8: 1191-1197.
  31. Gavrilova SI, Ferri CP, Mikhaylova N, Sokolova O, Banerjee S, Prince M. Helping carers to care--the 10/66 dementia research group’s randomized control trial of a caregiver intervention in Russia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2009; 24: 347-354.
  32. Pahlavanzadeh S, Heidari FG, Maghsudi J, Ghazavi Z, Samandari S. The effects of family education program on the caregiver burden of families of elderly with dementia disorders. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2010; 15: 102-108.
  33. Done DJ, Thomas JA. Training in communication skills for informal carers of people suffering from dementia: a cluster randomized clinical trial comparing a therapist led workshop and a booklet. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2001; 16: 816-821.
  34. Blom MM, Zarit SH, Groot Zwaaftink RB, Cuijpers P, Pot AM. Effectiveness of an Internet intervention for family caregivers of people with dementia: results of a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0116622.
  35. Lee SJ, Seo HJ, Choo ILH, Kim SM, Park JM, Yang EY, et al. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community-Based Dementia Caregiver Intervention on Caregiving Burden, Depression, and Attitude Toward Dementia: A Quasi-experimental Study. Clin Interv Aging. 2022; 17: 937-946.
  36. Söylemez BA, Küçükgüçlü O, Buckwalter KC. Application of the progressively lowered stress threshold model with community- based caregivers: a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontological Nursing. 2016; 42: 44-54.
  37. Hepburn KW, Tornatore J, Center B, Ostwald SW. Dementia family caregiver training: affecting beliefs about caregiving and caregiver outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001; 49: 450-457.
  38. American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-Centered Care: A Definition and Essential Elements. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016; 64: 15-18.
  39. Dementia: Assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2018.
  40. Fazio S, Pace D, Maslow K, Zimmerman S, Kallmyer B. Alzheimer’s Association Dementia Care Practice Recommendations. Gerontologist. 2018; 58: S1-S9.
  41. Ranasinghe C, Gray L, and Beattie E. Position statement 26: Management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Sydney, NSW: Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine, 2016.

Zhihui WEI, Yue HAN (2025) A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Community Interventions on the Burden, Depression, and Anxiety of Family Caregivers for Elderly Individuals with Dementia. Ann Community Med Pract 10(1): 1065.

Received : 25 Jan 2025
Accepted : 27 Feb 2025
Published : 28 Feb 2025
Journals
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X