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 601–625 of 1,013 studies (page 25 of 41) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

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.

Dementia caregiving: the experiences of Hispanic/Latino caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of transcultural nursing : official journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society 2005-04-01

The purpose of this study was to explore the phenomenon of dementia caregiving in an ethnically diverse group of Latino caregivers, with the goal of identifying cultural influences on the caregiving experience. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Factors Affecting Caregivers' Acceptance of the Use of Wearable Devices by Patients With Dementia: An Extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias 2019-11-03

The results of the extended model show that social influence, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and behavioral intention (BI) all had P P value for RC and TA was greater than .05, hence were insignificant. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Assessment of changes in place of death of older adults who died from dementia in the United States, 2000–2014: a time-series cross-sectional analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Public Health 2020-06-10

Dementia decedents were more likely to die at home and other places and less likely to die at institutional settings over the study period. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Trends in the use of advance care planning and cognitive assessment and care planning service visits: moving toward a palliative‐informed approach for ambulatory care of community‐dwelling persons with dementia and their caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

For 2018 and 2019, 3.5% and 5.4% received ACP visits, and 0.4% and 0.5% received CAACPS visits, similar to use reported elsewhere. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Psychometric Performance of the EQ Health and Wellbeing in Caregivers of Persons Living With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Value in Health 2025-05-09

In known-group validity analysis, the EQ-HWB instruments performed similarly to the C-DEMQOL in terms of effect sizes across a range of variables and slightly better than the CarerQol on some variables. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Factors associated with receipt of caregiver training among family and unpaid caregivers of people living with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Aging and Health Research 2025-05-22

• Caregiver training helps dementia caregivers understand the disease and learn about caregiving skills. • Overall, about one in twelve informal dementia caregivers had taken any caregiving training. • Factors associated with the receipt of training included caregivers’ race, relationship, working status, and payer status, and care recipients’ level of assistance. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,606 Evidence: low

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

Harnessing artificial intelligence for transforming dementia care: Innovations in early detection and treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Brain Organoid and Systems Neuroscience Journal 2025-05-16

Dementia, particularly Alzheimer's Disease, continues to be a significant global health concern, driven by increasing prevalence as the population ages. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Factors associated with anxiety, stress, depression and burden among informal caregivers of patients with dementia: a cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Nursing 2025-11-11

A total of 414 caregivers participated. They exhibited normal intensity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptomatology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 414 Evidence: low

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

Understanding Digital Literacy of Persons With Dementia and Their Caregivers: A Scoping Review and an Evolutionary Concept Analysis of Empirical Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2025-06-19

This study constitutes both a scoping review and a concept analysis, as it systematically examines digital literacy across settings (home, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care facilities) in the context of persons with dementia and their caregivers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Minority Stress, Discrimination, and Health Outcomes Among LGBTQ+ Older Adult Dementia Caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® 2025-11-01

Using LGBTQ+ Social Networks, Aging, and Policy Study Wave 3 data (N = 982), this study examines how caregiving for individuals with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias (MCI/ADRD) impacts everyday stressors, discrimination, and health outcomes among LGBTQ+ older adults in the Southern United States. 1 key finding →

Participants: 982 Evidence: low

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

A qualitative study on the impact and participation in the AGELESS multidomain intervention: Insights from older adults with cognitive frailty and their caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Public Health 2025-01-02

The analysis revealed five distinct themes: (1) impact of the program, (2) facilitators enhancing participation, (3) barriers hindering participation, (4) suggestions for improving participation and (5) challenges to adopt digital platforms. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

“There is always a reason why someone is doing something”: The importance of life history and personhood when supporting people with dementia to “wander” in care homes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Dementia 2025-01-27

Up to 60% of people living with dementia who reside in care homes will ‘wander’ at some point. 1 key finding →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

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

In-Home Assistive Technology May Help Protect Dementia Caregivers from Declining Sleep Efficiency: A Randomized Control Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Clinical Gerontologist 2025-05-21

Caregivers in the control conditions reported significantly worsening sleep efficiency whereas in comparison, those in the active conditions reported improving sleep efficiency. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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 27,380 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