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

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 626–650 of 776 studies · tagged End-of-Life Care (page 26 of 32) · 31,380 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; 16,851 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.

Withholding, discontinuing and withdrawing medications in dementia patients at the end of life: a neglected problem in the disadvantaged dying?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Drugs & aging 2010-06-01

Recent years have seen a growing recognition that dementia is a terminal illness and that patients with advanced dementia nearing the end of life do not currently receive adequate palliative care. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Understanding the needs of family caregivers of older adults dying with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Palliative & supportive care 2013-06-18

Supporting family caregivers of individuals with dementia throughout the disease trajectory requires consideration of caregivers : (1) physical, emotional, and psychological needs; (2) information and decisional support needs; and (3) instrumental support needs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Educating nursing home staff about the progression of dementia and the comfort care option: impact on family satisfaction with end-of-life care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2008-12-10

Although not significant, results as to the effectiveness of such an intervention to improve family satisfaction with end-of-life care are encouraging. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Content of advance directives for individuals with advanced dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of aging and health 2008-08-01

For advance directives to better reflect a person's wishes, discussions with individuals and families about advance directives should include a range of care issues in the settings of terminal illness, persistent vegetative state or end-stage illness. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Care at the end of life for people with dementia living in a care home: a qualitative study of staff experience and attitudes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2011-08-22

The staff require education and support about discussing and implementing plans around care at the end of life in dementia and about cultural issues around death to improve practice. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The last days of life of nursing home patients with and without dementia assessed with the palliative care outcome scale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Palliative medicine 2005-06-01

According to the NH staff, fairly good quality care was provided, but the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of care need to be addressed more in the last days of the dying NH patient's life. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

An evaluation of palliative care contents in national dementia strategies in reference to the European Association for Palliative Care white paper

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2015-02-13

National dementia strategies cover part of the recent definition of palliative care in dementia, although they do not frequently label these references as "palliative care." 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Advance directives for euthanasia in dementia: how do they affect resident care in Dutch nursing homes? Experiences of physicians and relatives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011-06-07

Advance directives for euthanasia are never adhered to in the Netherlands in the case of people with advanced dementia, and their role in advance care planning and end-of-life care of people with advanced dementia is limited. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Selecting the best instruments to measure quality of end-of-life care and quality of dying in long term care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2012-11-17

We recommend the EOLD-SWC to measure QOC, and the EOLD-CAD and MSSE to measure QOD in populations with dementia and in mixed long term care populations of nursing home or residential care home/assisted living residents, because they performed best in both countries. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Measuring the quality of dying and quality of care when dying in long-term care settings: a qualitative content analysis of available instruments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of pain and symptom management 2011-05-26

Instruments that assess quality when dying differ in several ways and most do not measure a single construct, which is relevant to guiding and evaluating care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Predictors of well-being in bereaved former hospice caregivers: the role of caregiving stressors, appraisals, and social resources

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Palliative & supportive care 2008-06-01

Our results indicated that patient diagnosis (cancer or dementia) and caregiver appraisals (stressfulness of functional impairment and positive aspects of caregiving) were not predictors on any of our well-being outcomes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

9 of the 770 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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 9. The same 9 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events