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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 199 studies (page 3 of 8) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 199 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 199 studies tagged long-term-care — 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.

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.

Predictors of care home and hospital admissions and their costs for older people with Alzheimer's disease: findings from a large London case register

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. BMJ open 2016-11-18

Most people with dementia prefer to remain in their own homes, and funding bodies see this as cheaper than institutionalisation. 1 key finding →

Participants: 3,075 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Prevalence and incidence of health problems in people with intellectual disability

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR 1997-02-01

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and incidence of the most frequent chronic health problems in relation to age in people with intellectual disabilities living in residential facilities in the Netherlands. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The effect of cognitive impairment on the accuracy of the presenting complaint and discharge instruction comprehension in older emergency department patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Annals of emergency medicine 2011-01-26

Study objective We seek to determine how delirium and dementia affect the accuracy of the presenting illness and discharge instruction comprehension in older emergency department (ED) patients. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 202 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Barriers and facilitators to the access to and use of formal dementia care: findings of a focus group study with people with dementia, informal carers and health and social care professionals in eight European countries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2018-06-04

Further investigations are needed to elaborate how the concept of a key contact person could be integrated with existing case management approaches and how the independence and autonomy of people with dementia can be strengthened when formal care needs to be accessed and used. 1 key finding →

Participants: 261 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Nursing Home Residents' Positive Behavioral Responses to Individualized Music Predict Improvements in Sundowning Symptoms After Music Listening

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of aging and health 2022-04-23

As hypothesized, residents who exhibited a greater number of positive reactive behaviors while listening to music also evidenced more improvements in their confusion, disengagement, unresponsiveness, and restlessness after their music-listening session. 3 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Increasing Complexity of New Nursing Home Residents in Ontario, Canada: A Serial Cross-Sectional Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020-03-02

Admission trends show that new residents were older and had greater multimorbidity and limitations in physical functioning over time. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Design and Development of a Community-Based, Interdisciplinary, Collaborative Dementia Care Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2021-11-12

Served dyads from three primary care clinics with a total of 87 dyads enrolled between December 2018 and June 2020. 2 key findings →

Participants: 87 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Costs, Staffing, and Services of Assisted Living in the United States: A Literature Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The health care manager 2016

Assisted-living facilities (ALFs), which provide a community for residents who require assistance throughout their day, are an important part of the long-term-care system in the United States. 5 key findings →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

An ethnographic study of stigma and ageism in residential care or assisted living

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2008-08

Four themes emerged that relate to stigma in RC-AL: (a) ageism in long-term care; (b) stigma as related to disease and illness; (c) sociocultural aspects of stigma; and (d) RC-AL as a stigmatizing setting. 4 key findings →

Participants: 309 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The association between aspects of daily life and quality of life of people with dementia living in long-term care facilities: a momentary assessment study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2016-04-12

The results underline the importance of social interaction and a positive mood for a higher QoL. 4 key findings →

Participants: 115 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

10 of the 199 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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
  • 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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