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 426–450 of 475 studies in Caregiving · free to read (page 18 of 19) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 475 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.

Other 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.

What “Caregiving” covers

Caregiving — Research on the people doing the caring: their health, their workload, and what support actually helps.

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.

Conditions for Nutritional Care of Elderly Individuals with Dementia and Their Caregivers: An Exploratory Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-03-13

Adults of 78.8 years on average, with low to middle socio-economic status, low education levels, and multiple comorbidities, have adverse well-being and support conditions, except for the spiritual component. 5 key findings →

Participants: 73 Evidence: low

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

Ethical issues associated with assistive technologies for persons living with dementia and their caregivers – An overview of reviews

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Dementia 2025-05-15

Assistive technologies hold significant potential to enhance the quality of life for persons with dementia and their caregivers by addressing key concerns related to safety, independence, and social inclusion. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Digital Dementia Education and Training for Informal Carers: A Scoping Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2025-05-28

The findings revealed three core areas: (a) types of digital tools used, including online platforms, video conferencing, mobile applications and SMS services; (b) educational domains addressed, such as knowledge and skills, psychological support, communication and social interaction, and environmental and technological adaptation; and (c) implementation strategies and outcomes, highlighting personalisation, cultural sensitivity and technological adaptability, which improved knowledge, emotional well-being and carer self-efficacy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Trust, consistency and transparency: in-home respite needs and preferences of people living with dementia and their carers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Frontiers in Health Services 2025-07-08

This exploratory, interpretivist, pre-implementation qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 15 participants—four people living with dementia and 11 carers—to identify their needs, preferences, and perspectives to inform the design and implementation of an in-home respite service. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

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

Living well with dementia: a qualitative interview study on family caregivers’ call for more person- and family-centered dementia support

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. BMC Geriatrics 2025-10-06

Three themes were identified: (1) Struggling with conflicting emotions and social challenges - caregivers reported experiencing stress, physical exhaustion, and emotional strain due to constant availability and the challenges of managing behavioral changes, further intensified by isolation and shrinking social networks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Beyond the Primary Caregiver: A Scoping Review of Family-Centered Dementia Caregiving Programs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® 2025-10-01

Most dementia caregiver programs focus on a single caregiver, overlooking diverse caregiving networks that include family, friends, and relatives who provide care. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Who Are Midlife Women Family Caregivers With Negative Attitudes Toward Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia Care?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2025-02-06

Participants' attitude toward Alzheimer's disease and related dementia scores were significantly associated with employment status, race/ethnicity (Hispanic), and instrumental activities of daily living. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Supporting Dementia Caregiving With a Mobile Care Ecosystem: Development and Mixed Methods Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. JMIR Aging 2025-11-03

In phase 1, the mean system usability scores increased from 65.4 (SD 11.8) in round 1 to 73.8 (SD 15.9) in round 3, exceeding the benchmark of 68. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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

Impact of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms on Caregiver Burden of People With Dementia With Lewy Bodies: A Multicentre Prospective Longitudinal Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Psychogeriatrics 2025-05-19

At the initial visit, the mean age of individuals with DLB was 80.8 (5.8) years; their mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 20.6 (5.1). 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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

Equitable formal care access: examining processes for Hispanic/Latino family dementia caregivers’ decision-making

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-07-25

Four main themes were identified: (1) reasons family caregivers may not choose formal care, (2) perceived benefits of formal care, (3) how family caregivers choose formal care, and (4) recommendations for delivering information about formal care options. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Supporting informal caregivers of dementia patients in China: action needed

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Frontiers in Psychology 2025-10-10

Beyond these practical challenges, caregivers often endure significant physical exhaustion and sleep deprivation from the unrelenting demands of caregiving, which can lead to chronic fatigue and deteriorating health (Liu et al., 2022; Mao et al., 2024). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing a Multicomponent Dementia Caregiver Program in a Complex Healthcare System

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. INQUIRY The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing 2025-03-12

The Tailored Activity Program (TAP), an intervention for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, has been shown to reduce behavioral symptoms for PLWD and caregiver burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Music attuned technology care via eHealth (MATCH): A proof-of-concept study for community-dwelling people living with dementia and caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Digital Health 2025-05-01

Participants found MATCH acceptable (combined AES median score of 28, range 25-34) and useful (SUS median score of 73.5, range 55-100). 5 key findings →

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
  • 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