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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 626–650 of 900 studies · tagged Caregiving (page 26 of 36) · 27,780 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; 13,259 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.

'24/7' Caregiving: A Qualitative Analysis of an Emerging Phenomenon of Interest in Caregiving

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. International journal of environmental research and public health 2022-12-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the difficulties faced by caregivers who have to provide continuous '24/7' care to persons with dementia with minimal formal and informal support. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Enrichment of dementia caregiving relationships through psychosocial interventions: A scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Frontiers in medicine 2023-01-05

Thirty-four studies were included. Psychosocial interventions generating enrichment among dyads mainly involved supporting dyadic engagement in shared activities, carer education or training, or structural change to the environment around PLWD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Family caregiver challenges in dementia care in Australia and China: a critical perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2014-01-23

In total 148 caregivers participated in the project with 57 of them from Australia (26 and 31 in the qualitative and quantitative strands respectively) and 91 of them from China (23 and 68 in the qualitative and quantitative strands respectively). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Health Care Resource Use and Social Costs in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports 2023-07-14

Patients with mild AD had higher total costs, patient medical costs, patient social care costs, and family caregiver informal care costs than did patients with MCI; however, only patient medical costs were significantly different (p = 0.022). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Interprofessional collaboration in palliative dementia care through the eyes of informal caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Dementia (London, England) 2022-05-10

A qualitative study was conducted to examine the experiences of informal caregivers of persons with dementia pertaining interprofessional collaboration with and among healthcare professionals in home care (HC), nursing homes and during home to nursing home transitions in palliative care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Graphic designed bedroom doors to support dementia wandering in residential care homes: Innovative practice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Dementia (London, England) 2019-08-07

Dementia-friendly designs are important in residential care homes but an aspect that remains neglected is the potential role of door designs in promoting wayfinding. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Ethical challenges in end-stage dementia: Perspectives of professionals and family care-givers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Nursing ethics 2021-06-11

We found dilemmas regarding palliative care to be the main theme, including definition of the disease as terminal, choosing "comfort" over "life-prolonging," clarifying patients' wishes and deciding whether or not to use artificial feeding. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias in African Americans: Focus on Caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 2023-03-16

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Alzheimer's Disease-Related Dementias (ADRD) are chronic illnesses that are highly prevalent in African Americans (AA). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Toward a broader concept of societal value: family spillovers in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. International journal of technology assessment in health care 2021-12-20

Recognizing that the "healthcare sector perspective" can be too limited in some situations, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the U.S. Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine all recommend a "societal" perspective in "reference case" cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Performance of the dementia severity rating scale: a caregiver questionnaire for rating severity in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 1996-01-01

The Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) is an informant-based, multiple-choice questionnaire that assesses severity from the mildest to the most severe stages in the major functional and cognitive domains affected in Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Rural families caring for a relative with dementia: barriers to use of formal services

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Social science & medicine (1982) 2002-10-01

Planning for the care of increasing numbers of elderly persons with dementia has become an urgent health services concern in Canada and elsewhere, yet little is known about the challenges of providing appropriate dementia care in rural areas. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

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.

↑ 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 27,780 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed