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.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 40 studies in Health systems and care delivery · tagged Health Equity (page 1 of 2) · 31,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 40 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.

What “Health systems and care delivery” covers

Health systems and care delivery — How health systems organize, coordinate and pay for dementia care, and where and how people with dementia actually receive it.

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.

To evaluate characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries associated with practices and clinicians offering telephone visits only and patients receiving telephone visits only, when both telephone and video were available. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,593 Evidence: low

TM was associated with higher odds of 30-day readmission (OR = 1.07 [CI: 1.02 to 1.12]) and frequent hospitalizations (OR = 1.10 [CI: 1.06 to 1.14]) compared to MA. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 36,656 Evidence: moderate

Inequities in Filled Overactive Bladder Medication Prescriptions in the US

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2023-05-24

An estimated 2 971 449 individuals (mean age, 66.4 years; 95% CI, 64.8-68.2 years) filled prescriptions for OAB medications in 2019; 2 185 214 (73.5%; 95% CI, 62.6%-84.5%) identified as female, 2 326 901 (78.3%; 95% CI, 66.3%-90.3%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White, 260 685 (8.8%; 95% CI, 5.0%-12.5%) identified as non-Hispanic Black, 167 210 (5.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-8.2%) identified as Hispanic, 158 507 (5.3%; 95% CI, 2.3%-8.4%) identified as non-Hispanic other race, and 58 147 (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.3%-3.6%) identified as non-Hispanic Asian. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 449 Evidence: low

In comparison to counties with the lowest AL penetration, high-penetration counties had higher high school and college education attainment (mean 25.3% vs 18.5%) and median annual income ($56,000 vs $46,800), and lower poverty (12.8% vs 17.3%) and unemployment rates (3.9% vs 5.1%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low

The study sample included 21 193 170 patients with 32 199 587 beneficiary-year observations (mean [SD] age, 75.5 [7.3] years; 18 936 697 [58.8%] female; 983 513 [3.1%] Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 190 515 [9.9%] Black, 2 710 930 [8.4%] Hispanic, and 25 314 629 [78.6%] White). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Analyses demonstrated that criteria regarding cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, hearing impairment, and sedentary lifestyle were associated with relatively high participant diversity, while gastro-intestinal/liver disease, motivation to participate, and language proficiency criteria were associated with relatively little diversity. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The age-adjusted prevalence rates of dementia (2.29%) and Alzheimer's disease (1.41%) in the Ibadan sample were significantly lower than those in the Indianapolis sample, both in the community-dwelling subjects alone (4.82% and 3.69%, respectively) and in the combined nursing home and community samples (8.24% and 6.24%, respectively). 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,494 Evidence: low

Black older adults are less likely to move to assisted living and are more likely to move to a nursing home compared to white older adults. 3 key findings →

Participants: 5,212 Evidence: low

We found that a larger share of Hispanic Medicare residents that are admitted to nursing homes have ADRD compared with African American and White beneficiaries. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,302,099 Evidence: low

According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), there are more than 70 associated genes or genetic areas associated with Alzheimer’s when 20 years ago, we knew of only four (Hodes, 2022). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate

To ensure diversity, we developed a comprehensive recruitment strategy using a diverse, culturally‐trained staff that includes : • Identifying Dementia Specialists experienced recruiting minorities • Embedding high‐impact community engagement in select regions • Increasing capacity of specialists and PET facilities to engage minorities • Increasing pipeline of referrals to Dementia Specialists • Creating a culturally‐informed awareness campaign Result New IDEAS has enrolled 4,524 participants including 954 (21.1%) Black/African American, and 842 (18.6%) Hispanic/Latinx. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,524 Evidence: moderate

Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare (TM). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The study included 2,284,175 FFS Medicare beneficiaries with an ADRD diagnosis in 2017. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,284,175 Evidence: low

The study population consisted of 54 million Medicare data Fee-for-Service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage enrollees aged ≥ 65; 5.3 million beneficiaries were diagnosed with ADRD, and 16.2% (n = 861,337) of beneficiaries diagnosed with ADRD resided in rural America. 4 key findings →

Participants: 861,337 Evidence: low

As disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease become available, ensuring equitable access to timely and accurate diagnosis of cognitive impairment is critical. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

There were 13,700 beneficiaries with full-year enrollment in MA (6,046) or TM (7,724), 518 with ADRD and 13,252 without ADRD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The ANCOVA demonstrated no significant overall differences in BPSD severity related to SES measures. 5 key findings →

Participants: 144 Evidence: low

The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set provides the dominant quality measurement framework for Medicare Advantage and commercial health plans, yet HEDIS lacks validated geriatric-specific quality indicators, equitable measurement standards for diverse older adult populations, and governance controls calibrated to the high-stakes Star Ratings financial incentive context. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (lecanemab and donanemab) represent the first disease-modifying therapies for early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD)- Italy's National Health Service (SSN) must determine whether to include these therapies within Essential Levels of Care (LEA), requiring reimbursement across all regions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 42,000 Evidence: low

There were no significant differences in self-efficacy related to obtaining respite and RDPB between SES groups. 5 key findings →

Participants: 144 Evidence: low

BackgroundRecently published clinical studies suggest that blood-based biomarker tests (BBMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) provide value, but in the U.S., neither public nor private payers currently cover these tests. 1 key finding →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Lower diagnosed dementia rates in MA compared to TM may exacerbate racial/ethnic disparities in diagnosed dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 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