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 301–325 of 855 studies in End-of-life care (page 13 of 35) · 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.

What “End-of-life care” covers

End-of-life care — Hospice, palliative care and end-of-life decision-making for people living with dementia.

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.

How Do Persons with Young and Late Onset Dementia Die?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021

Circumstances of death, symptoms, and treatment appeared to be similar between YOD and LOD, except that persons with LOD had significantly more somatic comorbidities and were admitted to hospital in the last three months of life more often than persons with LOD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Eighty-two percent of recommendations were successfully implemented during hospitalization and included in the discharge plan. 4 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

Unsuspected Emotional and Cognitive Disturbance in Medical Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 1977-12-01

Why assessment is of practical consequence to anaesthetistsGeneral Health Questionnaire (GHQ) in general hospitals: selecting a set of items using a stepwise hierarchical procedurePain assessment in cognitively impaired and unimpaired older adults: a comparison of four scalesMental disorders among internal medical inpatientsSuicide in Later Life: A Review and Recommendations for PreventionDELIRIUM IN THE TERMINALLY ILLRecognition of psychiatric disorders in nonpsychiatric hospital wardsNursing documentation versus standardized assessment of cognitive status in hospitalized medical patientsCompleted Suicide Among Older Patients in Primary Care Practices: A Controlled StudyDoes myasthenia gravis affect the brain?SUICIDAL PATIENTS IN THE ED: ETHICAL ISSUESMethodological issues of an epidemiological study: From the results of a study on psychological problems seen in outpatients visiting the internal medicine departments of general hospitalsPsychiatric disorders and vertigoTotal Quality Management and Geriatric CareAssessment and treatment of depression in the cancer patientUse of hospital services by AIDS patients with psychiatric illnessNeuropsychological and Pharmacokinetic Assessment of Hospice Inpatients Receiving MorphineMANAGEMENT OF SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR IN THE ELDERLYLiteraturverzeichnisSuicide in later lifeMajor depression in the primary care settingMaking the diagnosis of depression in the primary care settingThe Mini-Mental State Examination in General Medical Practice: Clinical Utility and AcceptancePsychological Morbidity in Obstetric-Gynaecology Patients: Testing the Need for Expanded Psychiatry Services in Obstetric-Gynaecology FacilitiesPrevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Medical InpatientsTranstornos do humor em enfermaria de clínica médica e validação de escala de medida (HAD) de ansiedade e depressãoDelirium in Elderly Patients: Evaluation and ManagementDelirium Presenting With Symptoms of DepressionAnalysis of the terms used by general practitioners to characterize patients considered by them as depressed.

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Eighteen members of the public-including patients, carers, and individuals with lived experience of both roles-along with two local board members and one representative from a statutory health and social care body, participated and were actively involved in developing the framework and co-producing outputs through structured small-group discussions. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

"Rapid-type" caregivers (n = 12) had a median age of 59 (range 45-73) years; 6 were female, and 9 were spouses. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

BackgroundLet's Talk Tech (LTT) is a self-administered web intervention for people with memory loss and their care partners that supports decision-making about digital health technologies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

In long-term care residents, ADL scores worsened by a mean of 0.29 points (95%CI = 0.27, 0.31) per 3 months and antihypertensive deprescribing did not impact this worsening (difference between groups -0.04 points every 3 months, 95%CI = -0.15, 0.06). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,238 Evidence: low

End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 358 Evidence: moderate

The case story of a 47-year-old man with advanced rectal carcinoma illustrates the professional services and care system strategies available to help clinicians serve patients coming to the end of life. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Most people in Germany die in institutions; the most common place of death is still the hospital, where more than half of all deaths take place. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Prevalence of ACPs and formal authorization of a legal representative was low among the deceased NH residents in Flanders, Belgium. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Our comparative study of psychometric properties of instruments allows for informed selection of QOC and QOD measures for LTC residents with dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 70 Evidence: low

We aimed to explore diagnoses associated with antipsychotic use, treatment patterns and characteristics of users without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

After controlling for comorbidities, treated AD patients have better survival, lower institutionalization, and sometimes fewer resource utilizations, suggesting that treatment and improved care management could be beneficial for newly-diagnosed AD patients from economic and clinical perspectives. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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