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

31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 188 studies in Caregiving published 2025 (page 2 of 8) · 31,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 188 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 17,251 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Smartphone App-Based Psychoeducation for Caregivers of People with Dementia in Vietnam: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Clinical Interventions in Aging 2025-09-01

Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Absence of care among community-dwelling older adults with dementia and functional limitations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature Aging 2025-03-17

Assistance with daily activities is crucial for persons living with dementia and functional limitations, yet many face substantial challenges in accessing adequate care and support. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

A Skill-Based multimodal intervention for dementia caregivers: impact on burden and anxiety

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2025-03-17

The sample consisted predominantly of women (79% in the intervention group, 69% in the control group), with daughters forming the largest caregiver subgroup (66.6% and 52.4%, respectively). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 42 Evidence: high

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

The evolution of serious health-related suffering from 1990 to 2021: an update to The Lancet Commission on global access to palliative care and pain relief

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Lancet Global Health 2025-02-26

The SHS global burden increased by 74% between 1990 and 2021 to almost 73·5 million individuals, with population growth accounting for only half of that increase. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Patient and Caregiver Outcomes of Health System, Community-Based, and Usual Dementia Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2025-09-02

A total of 2176 person living with dementia-caregiver dyads were enrolled; 1271 persons living with dementia (58.4%) and 1650 caregivers (75.8%) were female, and their mean (SD) age were 80.6 (8.5) years and 65.2 (12.3) years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,271 Evidence: high

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

Economic Burden of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias by Race and Ethnicity, 2020 to 2060

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-05

Of 31 028 older adults in MEPS, 5184 (10%) were African American; 146 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native; 1043 (3%) Asian (Indian, Chinese, or Filipino); 5346 (10%) Latino; 690 (2%) Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander; and 18 617 (75%) were White. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Interactive AI Technology for Dementia Caregivers: Needs and Implementation Evidence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Technology in Human Services 2025-02-25

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) places growing strains on family caregivers. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high

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

Effectiveness of Advance Care Planning for End-of-Life Outcomes in Nursing Home Residents With Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2025-11-27

Although ACP programs in nursing homes may increase DNR directives, evidence of other EoL outcomes remains limited and inconsistent. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: early

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

The final year for community-dwelling older adults with dementia in an Asian setting: admissions, interventions, and caregiver burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series A 2025-11-06

Nearly half (48%) of older adults experienced an inpatient admission, and nearly all (92%) experienced a potentially burdensome intervention. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Implementing early detection of cognitive impairment in primary care to improve care for older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of Internal Medicine 2025-05-23

Primary care is the ideal setting for early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), as it serves as the primary point of care for most older adults. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Trends in Home Health Care Among Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries With or Without Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-05-16

Among the 13 604 086 traditional Medicare beneficiaries included in the study (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.7] years; 60.4% women), 27.7% had a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Mediating effect of social support on the relationships between caregiver burden and quality of life in family caregivers of people with dementia: a cross-sectional study in Rural China

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. BMC Nursing 2025-01-10

The family caregivers of PwD exhibited a fair QoL, with a score of 29.01 ± 4.059. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 150 Evidence: low

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

Caring for People With Dementia: Mapping the Experience and Journey From Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-02-13

Data indicated that participants' needs fluctuated, with 3 key time points of heightened need: dementia diagnosis, in-home care, and transition into residential care. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.

1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events