Family caregivers of people with dementia (PWD) have a heavy care burden. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 270 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.
The mean score for affiliate stigma of dementia family caregivers was 48.09 ± 16.38 (range: 22-86). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 727 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
Out of 50,089 LTC residents, 12.1% retained their family physicians post-LTC admission. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among caregivers, this small randomized controlled trial found that escitalopram use resulted in improvement in depression, resilience, burden and distress, and quality of life. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Benefit-finding is an efficacious intervention for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer caregivers, with strong effects in the medium-term post-intervention and possible moderate effects in the longer-term post-intervention. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the first study to test community-based family dementia caregiver intervention in Vietnam. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aimed to examine the therapeutic mechanism of the benefit-finding therapeutic (BFT) intervention that used cognitive reappraisal and alternative thinking to construct positive aspects of caregiving (PAC), in a cluster-randomized controlled trial for Alzheimer caregivers. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Data collection began in Ontario and Alberta Canada in June 2015 and is expected to be completed in June 2017. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patient treatment with sertraline was not associated with significantly greater reductions in caregiver distress than placebo treatment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 131 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Phase 3 (NIH stage 1B) is a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the intervention versus the Health Education Program control. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This article describes the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD), including incidence and prevalence, mortality and morbidity, use and costs of care, and the overall impact on caregivers and society. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The prevalence of comorbid conditions in people with dementia is high. 3 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Behavioral symptoms such as repetitive speech, wandering, and sleep disturbances are a core clinical feature of Alzheimer disease and related dementias. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two themes were developed from 12 studies: caregiver needs related to the management of older people with dementia and caregivers' personal needs. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This systematic review of the literature focuses on the influence of ethnic, cultural, and geographic factors on the caregivers of patients with dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MBSR was more effective at improving overall mental health, reducing stress, and decreasing depression than CCES. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite methodological inconsistency, supporting caregivers appears to be an effective strategy often improving well-being of caregiver or care-recipient and resulting in additional benefits for society. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three themes emerged from 29 included studies: self-care needs and behaviors of ICGs, barriers to performing self-care, and enablers of self-care. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our goal was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with the reduction of employment hours in caregivers of frail elders. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,806 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 172 participants were randomized. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-four reviews were included, published between 2009 and 2023. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Future studies should prioritize short-term interventions and develop integrated approaches combining individual and group formats. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 750 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study will explore the added value of a multifaceted intervention programme and contribute to the design of future interventions for patients with mild dementia and their caregivers. 1 key finding →
Participants: 330 Evidence: high
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.
- Family Caregiver Burden and Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Japanese Community‐Dwelling People With Alzheimer's Disease: A Cross‐Sectional Study Using a Web‐Based Questionnaire
- Caregiving as a Risk Factor for Mortality: The Caregiver Health Effects Study
- Videoconference-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Family Caregivers of People With Dementia: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
- Caring for Grandchildren and Dementia Among Older Adults in China
- Perceptions of dementia, caregiving, and help seeking among Asian and Pacific Islander Americans
- Caring Under Pressure: Perceived Stress Among Caregivers of Dementia Patients
- The Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health (REACH): project design and baseline characteristics
- A pilot study of the reliability and validity of the Caregiver Activity Survey - Intellectual Disability (CAS-ID)
- Family decision-making for nursing home residents with dementia: rural-urban differences
- Indirect Costs of Alzheimer's Disease: Unpaid Caregiver Burden and Patient Productivity Loss
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 →