alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 326–350 of 405 studies · free to read · tagged Care Services (page 14 of 17) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 405 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Communicating palliative hope in late-stage dementia: thematic analysis of hope work in care plan meetings with nursing home residents’ families

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2025-06-06

We identified three main themes of palliative hope in late-stage dementia: 1) Life is good and there is still time, 2) Agency and identity are not lost, and 3) Death will be good and professional support is available. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Urinary tract infection‐related delirium in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: Clinical challenges and translational opportunities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-02-01

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) affects millions of patients worldwide and is a leading cause of morbidity in older adults. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Emergency Department Care Coordination Program for Assisted Living Residents With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-08-11

Of 22 total CCMs, 12 participated in this study (employed as a CCM for a median [IQR] of 2 [1-3] years; 12 [100%] female) and identified populations that they perceived to especially benefit from the program, including PLWD, patients in hospice, and patients living in group homes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Disparities in High-Risk Medication Use—Implications for Health Equity and Deprescribing Practices

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-04-14

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use-defined as the use of high-risk medications that can increase the risk of adverse events such as physical, cognitive, and functional decline; delirium; hospitalizations; and mortality-remains a significant concern in older adults in the US.Numerous guidelines, including the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 1 and the STOPP criteria, 2 define PIMs as medications for which the risk of adverse effects outweighs potential benefits or are inappropriate for specific populations or disease states, such dementia or kidney disease.PIM use may be particularly harmful in populations experiencing other health care disparities, as communities experiencing other consequences of health care inequity, including limited access to physicians or pharmacies, greater financial stress, and a higher comorbidity burden, may experience disproportionate effects from the adverse consequences of PIM use. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Modeling Early Detection and Geographic Variation in Health System Capacity for Alzheimer’s Disease‐Modifying Therapies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Widespread delivery of AD‐modifying therapies will require a combination of strategies to communicate the value of detection and treatment to patients, integrate PCPs into the detection and diagnosis pathway, and address capacity disparities across the United States. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Caring for an older person with dementia: Behavioral problems in the eyes of family caregivers and migrant home care workers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Dementia 2025-02-26

The present study addresses the perspectives of Israeli family caregivers and migrant care workers on behavioral problems of persons with dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Artificial intelligence approach to optimise safety for hospitalised patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. BMJ Open Quality 2025-09-01

We used 1387 safety event reports for model development, 989 (71.3%) reports related to situational factors and 119 (8.6%) reports related to active failures. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Privileges, and Permissions: Theorising Intersectionality and Cultures of Control in the Care of People Living With Dementia in Acute Hospital Settings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Sociology of Health & Illness 2025-01-01

A longstanding body of public enquiries and research identifies people living with dementia experience systemic inequalities within hospital settings, concluding a focus on improving care cultures is required. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Identifying Challenges Related to the Management of Comorbidities in People with Dementia in Residential Care: Expert Delphi Consensus Exercise

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2025-01-06

Improving early detection, management, and treatment of comorbid conditions to dementia in residential care could slow down cognitive and functional decline, and increase residents' quality of life. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

At Home versus in a Nursing Home: Long-term Care Settings and Marginal Utility

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Not indexed 2023

Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Perceptions of Hospital Care for Persons With Dementia During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social Media Sentiment Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2023-11-07

Hospital dementia care discourse on Reddit advanced 4 negative sentiment themes: (1) fear of poor medication management, hydration, and hygiene, (2) loss of patient advocacy, (3) precipitation of advance directive discussions, and (4) delayed discharge and loss of nursing home bed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Trends in hospital discharge outcomes among high-risk Medicare beneficiaries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Health Affairs Scholar 2025-03-18

We found that COVID patients initially experienced substantially longer hospital stays (8.3 vs 4.6 days) and higher 30-day mortality (34% vs 5%) compared to patients without COVID. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Behavioral Challenges and Adaptive Strategies in Providing Mealtime Care to Residents With Dementia: A Qualitative Study of Nursing Home Clinical and Administrative Staff

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2025-10-31

This study examined how nursing home staff adapt to challenging mealtime behaviors in residents with dementia, such as turning away or refusing food. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Caring for residents with dementia during a COVID‐19 outbreak in a long‐term care home

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2021

The outbreaks added significant additional stress to the nursing workforce, which has historically experienced high turnover, chronic staffing shortages, and increased burnout in long‐term care settings. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prior authorization and utilization management for post-acute home health in Medicare Advantage: the motivations, players, processes, unique challenges, and impacts on patient care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Health Affairs Scholar 2025-02-04

In 2024, 90% of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees were in a plan that required prior authorization of home health care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 30,980 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events