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 89 studies in Health systems and care delivery · tagged Treatments (page 1 of 4) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 89 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.

Barriers and Consequences of Prior Authorization for Neurologic Medications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-12-08

A total of 364 studies were identified using our search strategy on Ovid, 278 records were screened, and 20 studies were included in this review. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 364 Evidence: high

The program made it feasible to finance a costly treatment for patients that may benefit from it, while maintaining qualitative medical outcomes and sparing treating ophthalmologist from ethical gatekeeping dilemmas 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 5,642 Evidence: moderate

Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We identified 107,931 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as an AL resident and 323,766 beneficiaries with ≥1 month as a LSNH resident with dementia, including 1,923,867 person-months and 4,984,405 person-months, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,000 Evidence: low

The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Central nervous system (CNS)-active medication use is common in older adults; however, there are limited data on utilization trends over time, differences in utilization amongst those with and without dementia, and modification of utilization surrounding dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 444,587 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

Penny-wise but Pound-foolish: The Hidden Costs of Step Therapy for Overactive Bladder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Journal of Urology 2023-03-23

Lenore Ackerman *Correspondence: David Geffen School of Medicine, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Box 951738, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1738 telephone: 310-794-0206; E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-7649 Department of Urology and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003430AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Overactive bladder, including symptoms of increased urinary frequency, urgency, and incontinence, is more prevalent than diabetes, affecting 1 in 6 adults in the United States.1,2 Occurring more commonly among women and older adults, untreated overactive bladder is associated with reduced quality of life, increased incidence of depression and anxiety, increased risk of experiencing falls/fractures, and increased institutionalization. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Rapid health technology assessment of galantamine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: A review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Medicine 2025-06-09

This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and economics of galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, and to provide evidence-based reference for optimizing drug selection, dosing strategies, and reimbursement policies in clinical practice. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

A patient journey analysis: Identification and treatment of dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2020-12-01

Percentages of patients with imaging tests, DLB symptoms, diagnoses and treatments for DLB increased as patients’ first DLB diagnosis neared and occurred at lower percentages 7‐12 months after initial diagnosis. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 974 Evidence: high

Balancing Burdens and Benefits: Ethical Issues of Off‐Label Prescription Pharmaceutical Use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. PM&R 2013-10-01

He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Adapting prescribing criteria for amyloid‐targeted antibodies for adults with Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-03-13

Prior authorization criteria for Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved immunotherapeutics, among the class of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), established by state drug formulary committees, are tailored for adults with late-onset Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The advancement of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), along with the approval of three amyloid-targeting therapies in the US and several other countries, represents a significant development in the treatment landscape, offering new hope for addressing this once untreatable chronic progressive disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent positive results of three phase III anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody trials are transforming the landscape of disease-modifying therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease, following several decades of failures. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Choline alfoscerate, a cholinergic precursor with limited evidence of efficacy in dementia management, has been used for various cognitive impairments in Korea. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Coverage and Prior Authorization Policies for Semaglutide and Tirzepatide in Medicare Part D Plans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-08-29

This cross-sectional study examines trends in coverage of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, semaglutide and tirzepatide, and prior authorization requirements among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional 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 31,380 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