39/100
Four themes regarding caring for PWD in hospice. 5 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.
A person affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) gradually loses the ability to perform activities of daily living and becomes dependent on caregivers, thereby having a negative impact on the caregivers' quality of life. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
The United States is becoming more ethnically diverse, and Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs) are one of the most rapidly growing ethnic minority groups. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Future studies should consider culturally tailoring interventions for Hispanic/Latino caregivers from differing subcultures, utilizing relevant technology in studies, and evaluating the functional level of the care receiver and assess where he/she is in the disease process continuum. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
Adequate diagnostic information can be considered a basic intervention in dementia care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The assessment of functional capacity is essential for the diagnosis of dementia by DSM-IV criteria and has important implications for patient intervention and management. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
38/100
Conversely, longer travel times to service providers were linked to use of fewer community-based services (B = -0.21, p < .001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three main categories were created: (1) Impact of observed cognitive decline, (2) Impact of diagnosis on service engagement, and (3) Support and follow-up for family caregivers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This exploratory, interpretivist, pre-implementation qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 15 participants—four people living with dementia and 11 carers—to identify their needs, preferences, and perspectives to inform the design and implementation of an in-home respite service. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
Respondents (N=69) identified access to resources as the most important unmet need for caregivers (53%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is limited experience in combining interdisciplinary rehabilitation for persons with dementia and caregiver support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three themes were identified: (1) Struggling with conflicting emotions and social challenges - caregivers reported experiencing stress, physical exhaustion, and emotional strain due to constant availability and the challenges of managing behavioral changes, further intensified by isolation and shrinking social networks. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
Most dementia caregiver programs focus on a single caregiver, overlooking diverse caregiving networks that include family, friends, and relatives who provide care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
LDCs were recruited within the planned timeframe. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants' attitude toward Alzheimer's disease and related dementia scores were significantly associated with employment status, race/ethnicity (Hispanic), and instrumental activities of daily living. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
In phase 1, the mean system usability scores increased from 65.4 (SD 11.8) in round 1 to 73.8 (SD 15.9) in round 3, exceeding the benchmark of 68. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study predicts how sociodemographic trends-smaller family sizes, increased longevity, and marital patterns-could affect family care for people with dementia through 2060. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
Seven areas were identified as important to end-of-life care for people with dementia and/or family carers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There exists compelling evidence that advance care planning (ACP) remains a key factor in the delivery of appropriate end of life care and facilitates the timely transition to palliative care for people with dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Palliative care services would benefit from ensuring holistic approaches to supporting people with dementia, their carers and wider family networks. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Only one third (n = 10) of caregivers interviewed were prepared for the death, and the majority who were prepared were enrolled in hospice. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Many identified themes were consistent with published barriers to quality EOL care in dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings reveal several different views on what is important about end-of-life care for people with dementia; therefore, a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to care is unlikely to be most appropriate. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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.
- Health System, Community-Based, or Usual Dementia Care for Persons With Dementia and Caregivers: The D-CARE Randomized Clinical Trial
- Differences in Burden Severity in Adult-Child Family Caregivers and Spousal Caregivers of Persons with Dementia
- Meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for caregivers of people with dementia
- Families' Experiences With End-of-Life Care in Nursing Homes and Associations With Dying Peacefully With Dementia
- How Is End-of-Life Care With and Without Dementia Associated With Informal Caregivers' Outcomes?
- Living with dementia: increased level of caregiver stress in times of COVID-19
- Predictors of institutionalization among caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease
- Perceived Barriers for Advance Care Planning Among People with Dementia and Family Caregivers: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies
- Advance care planning information intervention for persons with mild dementia and their family caregivers: Impact on end-of-life care decision conflicts
- Health of Bi+ Dementia Caregivers: Moderation Effects of Minority and Caregiving Stress
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 →