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.

Find studies

Showing 526–550 of 1,013 studies (page 22 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 planning — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Despite providing high-intensity care, often for years, many bereaved caregivers perceived themselves as unprepared for the death. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is an urgent need for greater consideration of the ethical and legal implications that remote technological monitoring might have upon workforce morale, recruitment and retention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Five overarching themes derived from the interviews were as follows: (a) My life still has value and meaning, (b) I am my own unique individual, (c) I place my trust in other people, (d) The future worries me, and (e) I accept and embrace what life brings. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

At baseline, nearly one-third of caregivers reported moderate-to-severe burden (mean ZBI 31.4 ± 15.4), a prevalence that persisted at 6 months. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

3 network types were identified: "Siloed"-small networks, limited task sharing (29.8% of networks); "Small but Mighty"-small networks, high task sharing (23.0% of networks); and "Complex"-large networks, diverse membership, members who share and specialize in task assistance (47.2%). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A significant association between increased caregiver burden and BPSD in patients with AD was demonstrated, which may be associated with decreased caregiver healthcare and social care-related QOL. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Challenges to accessing community dementia care services: a qualitative study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. BMC Health Services Research 2025-05-23

We synthesized caregivers' multiple challenges under five themes - (1) lack of information and awareness limit perceived need for services, (2) cultural norms and values influence decision to seek services, (3) complex processes and long waiting times hinder ability to reach services, (4) financial constraints and high costs force alternate care arrangements, and (5) inability to meet expectations and lack of family support limit engagement with services. 4 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

The caregivers in intervention group showed significant reductions in distress scores for dressing, personal hygiene, communication, and behavioural and psychological care problems at both the 6th and 12th week assessments. 5 key findings →

Participants: 125 Evidence: low

With the increased use of technological supports in residential care homes, there is growing interest in the use of real-time location systems (RTLS) to enhance safety and streamline care. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

People with dementia have complex medical, functional, and social needs and experience highly variable care quality and outcomes across the U.S. health care system. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Quality of Life of Older Adults Living With Dementia and Caregiver Strain in Benin

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Value in Health Regional Issues 2025-02-26

A total of 114 older adults (mean age 73 ± 10 years, 51% female) and their primary caregivers (mean age 49 ± 16 years, 70% female) participated, of whom 73 were recruited from health facilities and 41 from rural communities. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low

(n = 14) included NH administrators and other leaders, palliative care providers, telehealth representatives, dementia advocates, a care partner, and a PLWD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The study cohort for the analysis of inpatient palliative care comprised 43,896 patients, while the cohort for the analysis of outpatient palliative care included a total of 37,430 patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 37,430 Evidence: moderate

Unmet PC needs were highly prevalent (78.2%). 4 key findings →

Participants: 359 Evidence: low

Participants with Lewy body dementia described losses associated with communication, continence, and energy leading to a progressive loss of independence. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

More than 50% of older adults with AD/ADRD visit the emergency department (ED) each year [3, 4] and those who do are seriously ill, have significant healthcare costs (e.g., hospital admissions, repeat ED visits) and mortality [4-6]. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Various approaches to advance care planning are in use and generally acceptable also for persons with dementia and their care partners. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

From across this tag

9 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 9. The same 9 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