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 1–11 of 11 studies in Caregiving in Research Square · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

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.

Co-adapting the GRACE (Goal-diRected ACcessible, Equitable, Evidence-based Care) Dementia Post-diagnostic Support Intervention to Improve Inclusivity

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-29

GRACE has demonstrated clinical and cost-effectiveness in trial settings, providing a strong foundation for wider implementation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Separating ECog scale-score information from dyad availability: observation-process contributions to dyadic prediction of cognitive impairment in ADNI

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-22

The conventional model (M2) concordance index (C-index) was 0.680, but fell to 0.649 when missingness indicators were removed. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,643 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Dyadic self- and informant-reported cognitive concern and subsequent MCI/AD diagnosis in ADNI: an exploratory prognostic modelling study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-04

M2 C-index 0.682, M3 0.692, M4 0.687. Adding the dyadic mean yielded an estimated ΔC of 0.010 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.024). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,762 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The mediating effects of attitudes toward people with dementia on the relationship between caregiving burden and sense of competence among dementia care staff in Southern Chinese nursing homes: A cross-sectional study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-09-01

Our results showed that caregiving burden was negatively associated with the sense of ability.. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 355 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Artificial intelligence education for health science and non-STEM students: a mixed- methods evaluation of an interdisciplinary mental health prototype development program

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-08-11

This interdisciplinary, prototype-centered AI education program was associated with significant short-term improvements in students’ perceived AI knowledge, digital mental health readiness, interdisciplinary collaboration, innovation capacity, STEM career readiness, and solution-design ability. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Co-design, Cultural Adaptation, and Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Carer Support Program for Chinese Australian Dementia Carers

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-28

The culturally adapted CSP enhanced self-efficacy among Chinese Australian carers of people with dementia, but not carer burden, quality of life and approach to dementia care. 3 key findings →

Participants: 48 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Building confidence in dementia care: The experience of Chinese Carers in participation in culturally and linguistically appropriate Carer Support Program

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-28

Four main themes emerged from the data: 1) the unseen challenges of caregiving; 2) knowledge and experiences lead to stronger self-confidence; 3) the power of peer influence on caregiving; and 4) pursuing better support for carers. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Navigating young-onset dementia caregiving: A qualitative study of unmet needs, support, and resilience

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-27

Although caregivers demonstrated resilience and adaptive coping, YOD caregiving in Singapore remained constrained by limited access to visible, tailored, and age-appropriate support. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Caring in the Shadows: The Lived Experiences of family Caregivers of Older Adults with Dementia in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Setting in Ethiopia

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-07-20

Caregiving for older adults with dementia in Northern Ethiopia is a totalizing and demanding experience that profoundly affects caregivers’ lives. 2 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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