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 1–25 of 50 studies in Digital health tools · tagged Care Services (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Digital health tools” covers

Digital health tools — Apps, wearables, online tests and other technology used to detect, monitor or support people with dementia.

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.

Increasing comorbidity and health services utilization in older adults with prior stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2016-10-19

Our findings demonstrate the importance of community-based patient-centered care strategies for stroke survivors that address their range of health needs and prevent more costly acute care use. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 29,673 Evidence: moderate

Deintensification of treatment regimens occurred in less than one-half of potentially overtreated Veterans and was more strongly associated with low HbA1c values and use of medications with high risk for hypoglycemia, rather than other resident characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,056 Evidence: moderate

Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2021-11-01

The findings of this large cohort study suggest that system-level measurement and reporting of specific low-value services is feasible, enables cross-system comparisons, and reveals a broad range of low-value care use. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Men, racial and ethnic minority individuals, older adults, and those with language barriers are at increased risk for undertreatment of depression. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This comprehensive portrait of rural-urban differences in dementia care highlights possible geographically based inequities and can be used by researchers and decision makers to guide development of more equitable dementia care policies. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Multimorbidity and long-term care dependency--a five-year follow-up

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2014-05-28

The results should form the basis for future health policy decisions on the treatment of patients with multiple chronic diseases and also show the need to introduce new ways of providing long-term care to this population. 3 key findings →

Participants: 115,203 Evidence: moderate

Our model could aid GPs or health service planners with the early detection of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 93,120 Evidence: moderate

Taking more anticholinergic medications is associated with greater risk of hospitalization for confusion or dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Hospitalised people with cognitive impairment experience significantly greater length of stay and when discharged to their usual residence are more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 28 days compared with those without cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Due to complex relationships of body-mass index and blood pressure with dementia individual components cancelled each other out and rendered the sum-scores meaningless for the prediction of dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,547 Evidence: low

The implementation represented radical innovation and required far more resources than the incremental changes anticipated by the participants. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Home-time, which can be readily calculated from administrative claims data, is substantially reduced for many patients following hospitalization for HF and is highly correlated with traditional time-to-event mortality and hospitalization outcomes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 59,736 Evidence: low

Most people with dementia prefer to remain in their own homes, and funding bodies see this as cheaper than institutionalisation. 1 key finding →

Participants: 3,075 Evidence: low

Delayed discharge is associated with higher hospital costs and complication rates especially nosocomial infections. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

A total of 6378 papers published between 2014 and 2023 were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,378 Evidence: low

Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD were at a higher risk of PAHs for certain uncontrolled comorbidities and incurred higher Medicare expenditures compared with matched controls without dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Utilization patterns of psychotropic drugs in institutionalized patients with dementia have changed over the past decade. 4 key findings →

Participants: 49,251 Evidence: low

↑ 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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