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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 676–700 of 979 studies · tagged Care Services (page 28 of 40) · 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.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

Maximizing Annual Wellness Visits to Promote Hearing Health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. The Hearing Journal 2019-04-01

Despite the increasing national attention being given to the risks posed by unidentified and untreated hearing loss, stakeholders—including primary care physicians, caregivers, and patients—have yet to make any significant progress in improving earlier recognition of hearing loss. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Hospitalization risk with and without dementia by region and race in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. American Journal of Epidemiology 2026-04-21

Understanding regional and racial variation in the risk of hospitalization with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD)-and how it differs from other conditions-is required to inform effective practice and policy. 2 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Competency‐based training boosts dementia knowledge and skills in home care workers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-06-01

The training significantly improved caregivers' dementia knowledge and self-efficacy but did not reduce caregivers' distress and depression, nor decrease care recipients' emergency room visits and hospitalizations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The perceptions of European geriatricians on the co-occurrence and links between dementia, delirium and frailty

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. European Geriatric Medicine 2025-03-15

Within the 440 included surveys, respondents particularly over-estimated frailty prevalence in older hospitalised patients, with two-thirds choosing between 41 and 80% prevalence, when the literature suggests only 23-46%, but paradoxically underestimated the frequency of frailty in people with delirium (more than three quarters of responses across 21-80%; literature suggests 71-93%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Advancing dementia care: a review of Italy’s public health response within the WHO Global Action Plan and European strategies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. BMJ Public Health 2025-07-01

IFAD activities led to substantial progress in dementia care services, with memory clinics, residential care facilities and daycare centres mapped, revealing regional disparities in service provision. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Tailored Dementia Care across Seven Swiss Memory Clinics: The CareMENS Model Improves Patients’ Mood and Quality of Life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Neurodegenerative Diseases 2025-08-18

anxiety and depression symptoms (HADS), functional autonomy (DAD-6), global cognition (MoCA), and quality of life (WHOQOL). 5 key findings →

Participants: 165 Evidence: low

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

Delirium: an urgent health priority in Australian hospitals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Public Health Research & Practice 2026-05-26

Delirium is a common health problem with serious and long-lasting health consequences that disproportionately affects vulnerable population groups (especially older people with dementia or frailty). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Risk Factors for Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Older Adults - Evidence from Consorci Sanitari Del Maresme and Mataró University Hospital, Catalonia, Spain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Aging and Disease 2025-01-01

Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is a highly prevalent geriatric syndrome that remains underdiagnosed and undertreated, often resulting in severe nutritional and respiratory complications with poor clinical outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: moderate

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

Tailored lighting intervention improves measures of sleep, depression, and agitation in persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia living in long-term care facilities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Clinical interventions in aging 2014-09-12

A lighting intervention, tailored to increase daytime circadian stimulation, can be used to increase sleep quality and improve behavior in patients with ADRD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

International variation in place of death of older people who died from dementia in 14 European and non-European countries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2014-12-18

Place of death of older people who died from a dementia-related disease differs substantially between countries, which might point to organizational differences in end-of-life care provision. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Nursing home residents dying with dementia in Flanders, Belgium: a nationwide postmortem study on clinical characteristics and quality of dying

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2013-03-21

Regardless of the dementia stage, many nursing home residents develop serious clinical complications and symptoms in the last phase of life, posing major challenges to the provision of optimum end-of-life care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Advance care planning and physician orders in nursing home residents with dementia: a nationwide retrospective study among professional caregivers and relatives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 2013-06-21

Communication regarding care is rarely patient driven and more often professional caregiver or family driven. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

End of life care interventions for people with dementia in care homes: addressing uncertainty within a framework for service delivery and evaluation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. BMC palliative care 2015-09-17

For people with dementia living and dying in care homes, EoL interventions need to provide strategies that can accommodate or "hold" the inevitable and often unresolvable uncertainties of providing and receiving care in these settings. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

10 of the 973 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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