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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 401–425 of 1,013 studies (page 17 of 41) · 27,780 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 1,013 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; 13,259 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.

Implementing monitoring technologies in care homes for people with dementia: A qualitative exploration using Normalization Process Theory

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. International journal of nursing studies 2017-04-27

Ageing societies and a rising prevalence of dementia are associated with increasing demand for care home places. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Caregivers’ burden analytics: combining variables from patients with dementia and their caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. BMC Geriatrics 2025-08-14

One hundred and fifty rules were found for caregivers with a moderate to severe burden, and these rules can be further summarized into twenty general rules. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 585 Evidence: low

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

Enhancing care service utilization and reducing burden: the role of needs assessments for dementia caregivers in long-term care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. BMC Nursing 2025-08-01

The implementation of needs assessments was associated with increased long-term care (LTC) service utilization. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Dissemination of the Care Ecosystem Collaborative Care Model for Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-01-06

Implementation efforts resulted in the adoption of the Care Ecosystem at 28 health systems and eight community-based organizations, including 22 participants in Medicare's Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) payment model. 5 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

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

Identifying and Addressing Unmet Needs in Dementia: The Role of Care Access and Psychosocial Support

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2025-03-27

People with dementia were on average 80.6 years old, mostly female (56%) and mildly to moderately cognitively impaired (85%). 98.6% of the participants had at least one need, of which just over a third (36.5%) were rated as met and just under two-thirds (63.5%) as unmet. 5 key findings →

Participants: 417 Evidence: low

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

LGBTQ+ identity social support and care access among LGBTQ+ caregivers of individuals living with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-05-01

Eighty respondents (8.1%) care for 90 individuals with neurocognitive disorders, a majority of whom are parents of the respondent. 5 key findings →

Participants: 982 Evidence: low

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

“It may cost you your money, it costs you your life”: a framework for financial hardship in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-07-25

Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

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

A critical literature review exploring the challenges of delivering effective palliative care to older people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of clinical nursing 2008-05-01

This review reinforces the importance of providing appropriate palliative care to individuals suffering from end-stage dementia and identifies some of the barriers to extending such specialist palliative care provision. 3 key findings →

Participants: 100,000 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Consensus definition of advance care planning in dementia: A 33-country Delphi study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-11-20

A communication and relationship-centered definitional framework of ACP in dementia evolved through international consensus supporting inclusiveness of persons with dementia and their family. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Advance care planning information intervention for persons with mild dementia and their family caregivers: Impact on end-of-life care decision conflicts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. PloS one 2020-10-14

Persons with dementia are at high risk for loss of decision-making ability due to increased cognitive decline as the disease progresses. 1 key finding →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Dying in U.S. nursing homes with advanced dementia: how does health care use differ for residents with, versus without, end-of-life Medicare skilled nursing facility care?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of palliative medicine 2011-12-16

Dual hospice/SNF access may result in fewer hospital deaths and higher quality of life for dying NH residents. 3 key findings →

Participants: 99,370 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

End of life care for people with dementia: The views of health professionals, social care service managers and frontline staff on key requirements for good practice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. PloS one 2017-06-16

The significant challenges of providing good end of life care for people with dementia requires that different forms of expertise should be recognised and used; including the skills and knowledge of care assistants. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The costs of dementia care by US state: Medical spending and the cost of unpaid caregiving

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 2025-03-20

BackgroundThere are 5.5 million people living with dementia in the United States (US), with the cost of unpaid care making up a significant portion of the care costs. 2 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

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

Current and Future Replacement and Opportunity Costs of Family Caregiving for Older Americans With and Without Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-05-31

Current annual replacement cost of unpaid family care is between $96 and $182 billion, 44% of which is accounted for by dementia caregiving. 1 key finding →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

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

From across this tag

10 of the 1,002 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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