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 215 studies in End-of-life care · tagged Care Services (page 1 of 9) · 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 “End-of-life care” covers

End-of-life care — Hospice, palliative care and end-of-life decision-making for people living 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.

There was no significant reduction in hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive in the intervention vs control groups (rate [SE], 3.7 [0.2]; 95% CI, 3.4-4.0 vs 3.9 [0.3]; 95% CI, 3.6-4.1; rate difference [SE], -0.2 [0.3]; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.2). 3 key findings →

Participants: 4,171 Evidence: high

Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2016-12-02

Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 99 Evidence: high

We present a range of trigger tools spanning different hospital settings and patient populations. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 17,000 Evidence: high

Better alignment between preferences for comfort-focused care and advance directives is needed in advanced dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 328 Evidence: high

These findings highlight the potential benefits of palliative care in some non-cancer illnesses. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,936 Evidence: moderate

The large number of well-characterized candidate facilities enabled several unique design features including stratification on historical hospitalization rates, randomization prior to recruitment, and 2:1 control to intervention facilities ratio. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high

During the study period, 82,118 patients with dementia (mean (SD) age, 83.04 (10.04), 51,170 (62.21%) female) underwent an acute hospitalization, of which 41,227 (50.27%) received care in hospitals that implemented a palliative care program. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 82,118 Evidence: moderate

Triggered Palliative Care for Late-Stage Dementia: A Pilot Randomized Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 2018-10-18

Specialty palliative care consultation for hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia is feasible and promising to improve decision-making and some treatment outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 62 Evidence: high

The methods we used for intervention fidelity allowed nursing home staff to implement a goals of care decision aid intervention for advanced dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 151 Evidence: high

Early specialist PC exposure reduced the risk of hospital-based acute care in the last 30 days of life for all chronic disease groups except dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 169 Evidence: moderate

Estimating prognosis for nursing home residents with advanced dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA 2004-06-01

A risk score based on 12 variables from the MDS estimates 6-month mortality for nursing home residents with advanced dementia with greater accuracy than existing prognostic guidelines. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,799 Evidence: moderate

ED attendance in the last year of life for people with dementia is common and is increasing. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,867 Evidence: moderate

This review highlights the complexities of pain in NH residents and has implications for both clinical practice and future research. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The final cohort included 27 243 nursing home residents with advanced dementia (19 363 [71.1%] women) who died between June 1, 2010, and March 31, 2015, at the median (interquartile range) age of 88 (83-92) years. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of dementia receiving postacute care in HH or SNF experienced similar rates of readmission and mortality across settings. 2 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 977,946 Evidence: moderate

Family members of persons with advanced dementia may be asked to make complex treatment decisions without having adequate knowledge regarding the risks and benefits. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Patients with dementia are significantly more likely to be disenrolled from hospice following a long enrollment period compared with patients without dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 149,814 Evidence: moderate

Quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes is often suboptimal. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

A mortality risk score derived from MDS data predicted six-month survival in advanced dementia with moderate accuracy. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 22,405 Evidence: moderate

NHs appear to provide less-aggressive end-of-life care to decedents with dementia than to those without. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,261,726 Evidence: moderate

Our results demonstrate delirium is a significant marker of mortality among seniors in the ED, and mortality risk is most salient in the first 3 months following an ED visit. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

Real-world deprescribing patterns of antihypertensives among NH residents with HTN and LLE/AD appear to reflect variation in recommendations for HTN treatment intensity and individualization of patient care in a population with potential overtreatment. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 10,574 Evidence: moderate

Later GOCDs were associated with greater risk of aggressive interventions and death as an inpatient and greater odds of ICU admission. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate

A novel method using an EHR phenotype plus brief medical record review is effective to identify hospitalized patients with late-stage dementia. 1 key finding →

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