Testing interventions in real-world settings requires fidelity monitoring to ensure implementation integrity. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Over 20% of caregivers reported high levels of care-related emotional difficulty. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Self-compassion was found to be negatively related to caregiver burden and dysfunctional coping strategies and positively related to emotion-focused coping strategies. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) score increased significantly between carers of PD-N (M = 13.39, SD = 12.22) compared to those of PD-MCI patients (M = 22.00, SD = 10.8), and between carers of PD-MCI and PDD patients (M = 29.33, SD = 9.59). 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tele-STAR reduced caregiver burden and retained good program and treatment fidelity to STAR-C. We found Tele-STAR reduced caregiver burden and had good fidelity to the original protocol. 4 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Dementia care, both at EOL and not at EOL, was associated with the most caregiver burden relative to regular care. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both members of the dyad rated the PWD, on average, as being "somewhat involved". 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The nature and outcome of family caregiving is different for various racial and ethnic groups. 1 key finding →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
46/100
Out of pocket expenditures by families (N = 182) of relatives with dementia residing in the community were examined. 3 key findings →
Participants: 182 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia caregiving has been associated with negative effects on caregiver health and early nursing home placement for dementia patients. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
45/100
Clinicians should be aware of the high rates of anxiety as well as depressive symptoms in family caregivers of people with AD, especially in female caregivers. 1 key finding →
Participants: 153 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
45/100
Twenty-one studies based on 18 samples were identified. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Caregivers of FTD patients were overall more distressed by the behaviour of their partners than were the caregivers of AD patients. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
No correlation with neuropsychiatric symptoms such as apathy and depression was found. 2 key findings →
Participants: 82 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increased public education about AD is needed in these communities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
Surprisingly, compared to White female caregivers, all the other groups were 37% (95% CI 0.41-0.95) to 71% (95% CI 0.15-0.56) less likely to have emotional burden. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
Caregivers with higher mastery had less NE reactivity to the stressor task. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 1,073 caregivers, 33% reported high baseline strain. 5 key findings →
Participants: 100,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DRRLS score of 83.61 ± 16.13, multiple linear regression showed that the patient's monthly individual income, the presence of chronic disease, health beliefs, and social support were independent influences on their dementia risk reduction lifestyle. 5 key findings →
Participants: 302 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We describe the complex care needs faced by families in dementia care and specialized multidisciplinary palliative care delivered through home visits as a feasible way to support advancing stages of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant improvements were observed after 1 month of VR intervention in both caregiver burden (Z=-3.095, P=.002, r=0.34) and neuropsychiatric symptoms (Z=-2.929, P=.003, r=0.32). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ResQ-Care-Dem scales' internal consistencies ranged between 0.65 and 0.81. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
Three overarching concepts were identified: "Pathways to Preparedness'", 'Multi-Level Barriers', and 'Bridging the Gap.' 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We enrolled 32 patients, 32 caregivers, and 25 clinicians. 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study included 180 (65%) caregivers for the elderly with dementia and 98 (35%) without dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 180 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
10 of the 893 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.
- Factors Affecting Caregivers' Acceptance of the Use of Wearable Devices by Patients With Dementia: An Extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model
- Loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Caregiving and the Stress Process: An Overview of Concepts and Their Measures
- Impact of dementia: Health disparities, population trends, care interventions, and economic costs
- Long-Term Outcomes of the Benefit-Finding Group Intervention for Alzheimer Family Caregivers: A Cluster-Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial
- Primary care and dementia: 2. Long-term care at home: psychosocial interventions, information provision, carer support and case management
- Association Between Family Caregiver Burden and Affiliate Stigma in the Families of People with Dementia
- Meta-analysis of nonpharmacological interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia
- A controlled study of respite service for caregivers of Alzheimer's patients
- Stress and Hypertension Among African American Female Family Caregivers of Persons Living With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Protocol for a Pilot Internet-Based Randomized Controlled Trial
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →