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 376–400 of 405 studies · free to read · tagged Care Services (page 16 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.

The new paradigm in community-based care: Managing mindset and expectations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Journal of Emergencies Trauma and Shock 2018-01-01

Some of the considerations that need to be taken into account in coming to a decision include: Disease prevalence and burden in the country The existing health-care model and system The ratio of health-care providers to patient Cost and health-care funding in the country The current and projected health-care demand and needs The perception of the population on FP s and primary care providers versus that of specialists in hospitals and The networks and strengths of the primary care model in the country. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY HOME HEALTH CARE FOR PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2024-12-01

Using multiple Medicare Public Use Files (PUF), including star ratings for home health quality of patient care (QoPC), home health care CAHPS survey (HHCAHPS), county-level ADRD prevalence, and Medicare FFS enrollment, we found that the median county-level number of home health agencies was 15 (IQR 8-29), star rating was 3.4 (IQR 3.1-3.7) for QoPC and 3.8 (IQR 3.5-4.0) for HHCAHPS. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Lecanemab, Donanemab, and Emerging Disease Modifying Therapies for Alzheimer Disease: Clinical Evidence and Primary Care Implications in Canada

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. International Journal of Science and Research Archive 2025-10-31

Monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab show reduction in amyloid plaque and slowing of cognitive and functional decline (modest) in early AD (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia). 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

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

Lecanemab, Donanemab, and Emerging Disease Modifying Therapies for Alzheimer Disease: Clinical Evidence and Primary Care Implications in Canada

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. International Journal of Science and Research Archive 2025-10-31

Monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab show reduction in amyloid plaque and slowing of cognitive and functional decline (modest) in early AD (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia). 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

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

Assisted Living Staff Perspectives on End-Of-Life Care for Residents Living With Dementia: A Qualitative Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® 2026-04-19

BackgroundAlzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) affect nearly half of assisted living (AL) residents, the majority of whom have palliative care (PC) needs at the end of life (EOL). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Regional Variation in Healthcare Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2020-12-01

Controlling for beneficiary, local, and state characteristics, we found the following factors to be associated with beneficiaries spending less time in nursing homes: fewer nursing home beds in the county, higher state Medicaid long-term care spending for home and community-based services (HCBS), and state use of Certificate of Need laws. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

HEDIS Measures for Geriatric Care Quality: Evidence, Equity, and a Governance Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) 2023-01-30

The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set provides the dominant quality measurement framework for Medicare Advantage and commercial health plans, yet HEDIS lacks validated geriatric-specific quality indicators, equitable measurement standards for diverse older adult populations, and governance controls calibrated to the high-stakes Star Ratings financial incentive context. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

From Attitudes to Action, Primary Care Alzheimer's Detection: How Knowledge, Confidence, and Clinic Capacity Predict Actual Screening and Referral Behavior

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Medical Research Archives 2026-01-01

However, knowledge alone does not consistently predict screening behavior. 4 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

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

Designing a Palliative Care Pathway for Enhanced Dementia Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Riverside Health has developed a new palliative care pathway to serve as an innovative standard of person-centered care for persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Lessons Learned from a Pandemic: Personhood and Caregiver Stress in Nursing Home Dementia Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 25 out of 100. Journal of Aging and Long-Term Care 2025-12-30

This study examined how the COVID-19 pandemic altered the sociologic, individual, and biologic personhood of residents living with dementia in nursing homes, guided by Buron’s (2008) Personhood Model for Dementia Care (PMDC). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A head-to-head comparison of plasma biomarkers to detect biologically defined Alzheimer in a memory clinic

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2024-10-27

Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been widely studied, but direct comparisons of several biomarkers in clinical settings remain limited. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate

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

Addressing the “Total Taxpayer” Problem to Translate Veterans Health Administration Innovations in Long-Term Supports

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Public Policy & Aging Report 2019-10-28

This includes adapting and disseminating care delivery innovations from one system to another, as well as measuring and sharing in the improved outcomes and reduced costs that might result. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Deaths from Alzheimer’s Disease — United States, 1999–2014

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2017-05-25

Alzheimer's disease (Alzheimer's), an ultimately fatal form of dementia, is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 3.6% of all deaths in 2014 (1,2). 3 key findings →

Participants: 93,541 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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