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.

Find studies

Showing 201–225 of 405 studies · free to read · tagged Care Services (page 9 of 17) · 30,580 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.

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.

Population‐based Dementia Identification and Care Coordination: The CS CARES Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2023-12-01

PLWD proactively enrolled in a dementia care program have high baseline rates of behavioral issues and their caregivers have elevated depression and stress scores. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 195 Evidence: moderate

PROFILE OF DECEDENTS FROM A NATIONAL COHORT OF ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENTS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2022-11-01

An increasing number of older adults reside in assisted living (AL) toward the end of life, and it remains unclear if this trend represents an additional place of care and end-of-life transition before eventual nursing home admission. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 273,722 Evidence: moderate

Person-centered care provides a critical framework for dementia support in long-term care facilities, emphasizing attention to each resident's evolving needs, personal history, preferences, and values. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Upon initiation of guanfacine, patients with delirium had a reduction in daily antipsychotic exposure and a decrease in positive delirium screens. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate

PurposeDelirium is a common yet preventable complication of hospitalization, surgery and illness that is associated with poor outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We examined state variations in assisted living (AL) regulatory policies for admission/retention, staffing/training, medication management, and dementia care. 3 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

The cross-disciplinary expertise, required for GA, common in the days before medical specialization and enabled by the relative paucity of development in various fields compared with today, can be reborn with the advent of Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems that make the tools of medical geography accessible to a wide variety of health care researchers and clinical subspecialties. 4 key findings →

Participants: 127 Evidence: low

We combine the MAX data with Medicare claims to identify hospital admissions, our main outcome variable, and with state and county data on the percent of individuals receiving HCBS versus nursing home care. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A total of 30 articles were included. These detail the multifaceted responsibilities of clinical pharmacists in primary care for older people. 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

The risk of delirium admissions was elevated for the first 1-30 days of prescriptions [IRR 1.54 (95% CI 1.30-1.82) for men, 1.44 (1.22-1.70) for women] and whilst reducing over time for women [1.10 (0.94-1.29) for 91-365 days of prescriptions], it remained elevated for men [1.38 (1.17-1.64)]. 5 key findings →

Participants: 293 Evidence: low

Among 51,202 admissions (mean/SD age = 82/7 years), any cognitive morbidity was present in 18,225 (35.6%, 95% CI 35.2-36.0%): delirium occurred in 24.0% (n = 12,289, of which 14.3% (n = 7332) had delirium only and 9.7% (n = 4957) had delirium + dementia) dementia only in 8.7%, (n = 4450), AMTS <8 in 2.9% (n = 1486). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,289 Evidence: low

Pre-post evaluations revealed significant reductions in physical symptoms, psychosocial-spiritual distresses and information insufficiency of patients in the first three months of service. 4 key findings →

Participants: 567 Evidence: high

There were 361 deaths. Median survival was longer for residents with advanced dementia and frailty (16.5 months, 95%CI:13.5–19.5 months, P < 0.001) compared to incurable cancer (8.1 months, 95%CI:5.1–11.1 months, P < 0.001) and end-stage organ failure (7.7 months, 95%CI:3.0-12.4 months, P < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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