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 201–225 of 979 studies · tagged Care Services (page 9 of 40) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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; 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.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Survival Model With Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Cancer

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA network open 2020-04-01

After backward stepwise selection in year 0, the following factors were associated with increased risk of death by more than 10%: being hospitalized; having congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; having moderate to high pain; having worse well-being; having functional status in the transitional or end-of-life phase; having any problems with appetite; receiving end-of-life home care; and living in a nursing home. 2 key findings →

Participants: 494 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Plasma and CSF biomarkers in a memory clinic: Head-to-head comparison of phosphorylated tau immunoassays

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2022-11-12

Several plasma p-tau biomarkers can be used in a specialized memory clinic as a stand-alone biomarker to detect biologically-defined AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 197 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Rapid appraisal of barriers to the diagnosis and management of patients with dementia in primary care: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. BMC family practice 2010-07-01

Much can still be done in the way of service development and provision, GP training and education, and the eradication of stigma attached to dementia, to improve the early detection and management of dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Clinical and organizational factors associated with feeding tube use among nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA 2003-07-01

More than one third of severely cognitively impaired residents in US nursing homes have feeding tubes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 186,835 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A randomized controlled trial of an activity specific exercise program for individuals with Alzheimer disease in long-term care settings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of geriatric physical therapy (2001) 2011-04-01

Subjects receiving the activity specific exercise program improved in ability to perform transfers, whereas subjects in the other 2 groups declined. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Comorbidity and polypharmacy in people with dementia: insights from a large, population-based cross-sectional analysis of primary care data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Age and ageing 2017-01-01

Such complex needs require an integrated response from general health professionals and multidisciplinary dementia specialists. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 291,169 Evidence: low

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

Quantifying diagnostic signal decay in dementia: a national study of Medicare hospitalization data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-11-01

Non-specific codes were most common. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia codes showed high regional variability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,016 Evidence: moderate

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

Palliative care for non-cancer conditions in primary care: a time trend analysis in the UK (2009-2014)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMJ supportive & palliative care 2020-01-13

Recording of a palliative care approach for non-cancer conditions has increased since the introduction of the UK End-of-Life Care Strategy, but remains inadequate. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,426 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Palliative care provision in long-term care facilities differs across Europe: Results of a cross-sectional study in six European countries (PACE)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Palliative medicine 2019-07-01

The late initiation of palliative care (especially when advance care planning is lacking) and palliative care for residents without cancer, dementia or closely involved relatives deserve attention in all countries. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Psychiatric symptoms and nursing home placement of patients with Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. The American journal of psychiatry 1990-08-01

Two hundred ten community-dwelling patients with Alzheimer's disease were examined prospectively by psychiatrists as part of a longitudinal study. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Differential risk of death in older residents in nursing homes prescribed specific antipsychotic drugs: population based cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2012-02-23

Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Infection management and multidrug-resistant organisms in nursing home residents with advanced dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2014-10-01

The cohort experienced 496 suspected infections; 72.4% were treated with antimicrobials, most commonly quinolones (39.8%) and third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins (20.6%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Association of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment With ICU Admission Among Patients Hospitalized Near the End of Life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA 2020-03-01

For evaluating factors associated with POLST-discordant care, the outcome was ICU admission contrary to POLST order for medical interventions during the last hospitalization of life. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Dementia as a risk factor for falls and fall injuries among nursing home residents

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003-09-01

Although most falls do not result in injury, the fact that residents with dementia fall more often than their counterparts without dementia leaves them with a higher overall risk of sustaining injurious falls over time. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Identifying undetected dementia in UK primary care patients: a retrospective case-control study comparing machine-learning and standard epidemiological approaches

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2019-12-02

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

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

Comparing post-acute rehabilitation use, length of stay, and outcomes experienced by Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with hip fracture in the United States: A secondary analysis of administrative data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. PLoS Medicine 2018-06-26

This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

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