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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 751–775 of 834 studies in Caregiving (page 31 of 34) · 28,180 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)

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; 13,658 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.

Patient and Caregiver Interplay in Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: Family Caregiver's Experience

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Clinical nursing research 2016-11-17

The purpose of this study was to identify family caregivers' experiences in managing the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) with particular focus on their interpersonal interactions with patient with dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Activities of daily living in patients with dementia: clinical relevance, methods of assessment and effects of treatment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. CNS drugs 2004-01-01

Disability, characterised by the loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), is a defining feature of dementia that results in growing caregiver burden and the eventual need for alternative care or nursing home placement. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Trust, consistency and transparency: in-home respite needs and preferences of people living with dementia and their carers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Frontiers in Health Services 2025-07-08

This exploratory, interpretivist, pre-implementation qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 15 participants—four people living with dementia and 11 carers—to identify their needs, preferences, and perspectives to inform the design and implementation of an in-home respite service. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

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

Living well with dementia: a qualitative interview study on family caregivers’ call for more person- and family-centered dementia support

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. BMC Geriatrics 2025-10-06

Three themes were identified: (1) Struggling with conflicting emotions and social challenges - caregivers reported experiencing stress, physical exhaustion, and emotional strain due to constant availability and the challenges of managing behavioral changes, further intensified by isolation and shrinking social networks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Beyond the Primary Caregiver: A Scoping Review of Family-Centered Dementia Caregiving Programs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® 2025-10-01

Most dementia caregiver programs focus on a single caregiver, overlooking diverse caregiving networks that include family, friends, and relatives who provide care. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Who Are Midlife Women Family Caregivers With Negative Attitudes Toward Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia Care?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2025-02-06

Participants' attitude toward Alzheimer's disease and related dementia scores were significantly associated with employment status, race/ethnicity (Hispanic), and instrumental activities of daily living. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Supporting Dementia Caregiving With a Mobile Care Ecosystem: Development and Mixed Methods Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. JMIR Aging 2025-11-03

In phase 1, the mean system usability scores increased from 65.4 (SD 11.8) in round 1 to 73.8 (SD 15.9) in round 3, exceeding the benchmark of 68. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

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

Caregiver burden, health utilities, and institutional service use in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2011-05-10

Random effects results suggest that caregiver burden weakens the inverse relationship between health utilities and institutional service use, leading to greater likelihood of institutional use than would be expected at a given level of health. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Determinants of burden in an Italian sample of Alzheimer's patient caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of cross-cultural gerontology 1996-03

The association between caregiver's stress and depressive symptoms, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of Alzheimer's patients and caregivers was evaluated in 63 primary caregivers consecutively recruited at the Alzheimer's Dementia Research and Care Unit of Brescia, northern Italy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Impact of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms on Caregiver Burden of People With Dementia With Lewy Bodies: A Multicentre Prospective Longitudinal Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Psychogeriatrics 2025-05-19

At the initial visit, the mean age of individuals with DLB was 80.8 (5.8) years; their mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 20.6 (5.1). 5 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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
  • 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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