A systematic review of respite care for people with dementia and other functional disabilities has found that some models are associated with lower caregiver stress and burden, but that evidence on costs remains sparse and the underlying studies carry a high risk of bias. The review, published online August 7, 2026 in The Gerontologist by Mengting Liu and colleagues, searched ten databases from inception through March 9, 2025 and identified eight studies, three randomized controlled trials and five quasi-experimental studies, covering 1,420 care recipients and 1,610 caregivers. Four of the eight studies were judged at high risk of bias and the remaining four had some concerns, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The authors grouped interventions into two types: home-based respite care with additional support, which was linked to reduced caregiver stress but showed limited effects on care recipients, and diversified respite care that combined home, institutional and day-center services, which was linked to reduced caregiver burden, better mental health and quality of life, and longer time that care recipients remained living in the community. Only two of the eight studies reported any cost-related data, and the authors state that no full cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in any of the included work, meaning claims that respite care simply cuts costs cannot yet be substantiated by this evidence base. The review's authors write that findings should be interpreted cautiously given the generally high risk of bias among included studies, and describe the results as preliminary insights for the design of future home and community-based respite services rather than a verdict on which model works best. This is a notable gap for a service so widely used: an earlier Cochrane review of respite care for dementia caregivers, last substantively examining four trials with 753 participants, likewise found the evidence too thin to show clear benefit or harm. Families and clinicians weighing respite options are left, more than a decade later, with a larger but still fragile evidence base: signals of benefit for caregivers under certain models, virtually no rigorous cost data, and a field the review's authors say still needs better-designed trials before its economic case can be made.