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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–23 of 23 studies with an author at King's College London (GB) · free to read · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 23 studies tagged planning — 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.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

Music-based therapeutic interventions for people with dementia (Cochrane review update)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2025-03-07

For music-based therapeutic interventions compared to usual care, we found moderate-certainty evidence that, at the end of treatment, music-based therapeutic interventions probably improved depressive symptoms slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to -0.04; 9 studies, 441 participants), and we found low-certainty evidence that it may have improved overall behavioural problems (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.02; 10 studies, 385 participants). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,720 Evidence: moderate

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

Living well with dementia: a systematic review and correlational meta-analysis of factors associated with quality of life, well-being and life satisfaction in people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Psychological medicine 2018-05-08

Current policy emphasises the importance of 'living well' with dementia, but there has been no comprehensive synthesis of the factors related to quality of life (QoL), subjective well-being or life satisfaction in people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 198 Evidence: high

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

The effectiveness of a home care program for supporting caregivers of persons with dementia in developing countries: a randomised controlled trial from Goa, India

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. PloS one 2008-06-04

Home based support for caregivers of persons with dementia, which emphasizes the use of locally available, low-cost human resources, is feasible, acceptable and leads to significant improvements in caregiver mental health and burden of caring. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Cost-utility of a new psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for independence in dementia (NIDUS-Family) versus goal setting and routine care: an economic evaluation embedded within a randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2025-02-17

Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2022, we randomly allocated 204 participants (109 [53%] women and 95 [47%] men) to the intervention group and 98 (60 [61%] women and 38 [39%] men) to the control group. 218 (72%) participants at 6 months and 178 (59%) at 12 months provided cost data. 2 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 302 Evidence: high

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

Burden and care time for dementia caregivers in the LIVE@Home.Path trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-03-01

Two hundred eighty dyads were enrolled. Caregivers during the intervention period reported lower levels of RSS of 0.7 points (standard deviation [SD]: 0.8) compared to the caregivers in the control period. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

A meta-review and synthesis of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for people living with dementia nearing the end of life and their family carers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. International Psychogeriatrics 2025-04-02

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

A population-based retrospective cohort study of end-of-life emergency department visits by people with dementia: multilevel modelling of individual- and service-level factors using linked data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2023-03-01

of 74,486 decedents (60.5% women; mean age 87.1 years (standard deviation: 7.1)), 82.6% had at least one ED visit in their last year of life. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

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

Service delivery and the role of clinical pharmacists in UK primary care for older people, including people with dementia: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. BMC Family Practice 2025-01-14

A total of 30 articles were included. These detail the multifaceted responsibilities of clinical pharmacists in primary care for older people. 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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

Advance care planning and quality of life: A qualitative interview study in people with young-onset dementia and their family caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Palliative Medicine 2025-03-15

Four themes were found: sense of self, connection to others, acceptance versus resistance in the face of adversity, and orientation toward the future versus focus on the present. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Bringing up the end of life and euthanasia. A mixed method study on consultations with people with dementia and their families in the hospital setting

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Palliative Medicine 2026-02-14

End-of-life topics were discussed in 36% of consultations (in regional hospitals, 53%; in academic settings, 27%), and predominantly during diagnostic consultations (54%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Additional file 2 of Factors influencing readiness for advance care planning in dementia: a qualitative interview study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Figshare 2026-02-09

Appendix B. Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Additional file 1 of Factors influencing readiness for advance care planning in dementia: a qualitative interview study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Figshare 2026-02-09

Appendix A. Interview guides on experiences with advance care planning, factors influencing readiness for advance care planning, and the use of conversation aids among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2005-03-01

Further research with DEMQOL is needed to confirm these findings in an independent sample, evaluate responsiveness, investigate the feasibility of use in specific subgroups and in economic evaluation, and develop population norms. 2 key findings →

Participants: 130 Evidence: low

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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 →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed