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

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 151–175 of 507 studies · free to read (page 7 of 21) · 30,980 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)

Showing 507 studies tagged nursing — clear

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; 16,452 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.

Healthcare Utilization Among Older Adults With Dementia in France: A Comparative Analysis of a Dementia Village and Traditional Nursing Homes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Value in Health 2026-03-10

VLAHE residents had fewer hospitalizations and shorter stays (10.5 vs 15.2 days, P = .0004) than comparable NH residents, particularly for acute care. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Special Care Units and Traditional Care in Dementia: Relationship with Behavior, Cognition, Functional Status and Quality of Life - A Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra 2013-10-05

Our literature search resulted in 32 studies published until October 2012. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Web-Based Caregiver Decision Aid (Safety in Dementia) for Firearm Access: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JMIR formative research 2021-09-22

SiD represents a new resource for promoting safety among people with dementia, and high acceptability was achieved in a pilot trial. 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Reminiscence and Digital Storytelling to Improve the Social and Emotional Well-Being of Older Adults With Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study Design and a Randomized Controlled Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JMIR research protocols 2023-09-07

Studies suggest that reminiscence strategies combined with an intergenerational approach may yield significant social and mental health benefits for participants. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Quality of life in dementia: more than just cognition. An analysis of associations with quality of life in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2006-02-01

These data suggest that quality of life in dementia is complex, and that simple proxy substitutions of discrete measures such as cognition or function are likely to miss important factors. 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Mediating effect of social support on the relationships between caregiver burden and quality of life in family caregivers of people with dementia: a cross-sectional study in Rural China

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. BMC Nursing 2025-01-10

The family caregivers of PwD exhibited a fair QoL, with a score of 29.01 ± 4.059. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 150 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Caring for People With Dementia: Mapping the Experience and Journey From Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-02-13

Data indicated that participants' needs fluctuated, with 3 key time points of heightened need: dementia diagnosis, in-home care, and transition into residential care. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Occurrence of advance care planning for persons with dementia, cancer and other chronic-progressive diseases in general practice: longitudinal analysis of data from health records linked with administrative data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-09-01

In adjusted analyses, the rate of first ACP conversation for persons with organ failure was the lowest (IRR 0.70 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.73)). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Reasons for institutionalization of people with dementia: informal caregiver reports from 8 European countries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2013-11-12

Multiple reasons contribute to the institutionalization for people with dementia, with several factors that may influence why there were country differences. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Place of Death of Older Persons with Dementia. A Study in Five European Countries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2010-04-01

The aging of the European population will lead to a rapid increase in dementia cases in the coming decades, posing challenges for the organization and provision of end-of-life care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Loneliness among dementia caregivers: evaluation of the psychometric properties and cutoff score of the Three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Frontiers in Psychiatry 2025-04-07

One factor accounted for 79.0% of the variance in the UCLALS3; it was perfectly invariant across genders but variant at the metric level across countries. 5 key findings →

Participants: 571 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Repercussions of abuse by caregivers in the elderly population with dementia: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Psychogeriatrics 2025-01-22

Due to the ageing population throughout the world, the rates of older adults suffering from dementia are increasing, requiring a closer look at this population. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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.

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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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