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 376–400 of 855 studies in End-of-life care (page 16 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.

This pilot project demonstrates that a staff educational program on end-of-life care for dementia residents can improve end-of-life knowledge and attitudes among long-term care ancillary staff and that this improvement can be maintained for up to 1 year. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Experiences translated into four themes: acknowledging human dignity; being recognised as an important caregiver; (not) talking about death and dying and making decisions together. 5 key findings →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia is a comprehensive and acceptable caregiver-reported measure to detect symptoms and problems in dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

The findings identify resident subgroups at especially high risk of poor oral health who can be targeted in quality improvement efforts related to oral hygiene; they also indicate need to improve the accuracy of how MDS items are completed. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Participants chose to forego more invasive or long-term treatments at a higher rate than less invasive, short-term treatments in all health states. 1 key finding →

Participants: 342 Evidence: low

Findingss: uggested that dementia reshaped the structure and intensity of the shared decision-making process by increasing surrogate engagement and decisional demands, underscoring the importance of early advance care planning and structured support for family caregivers to sustain goal-concordant care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

(n = 14) included NH administrators and other leaders, palliative care providers, telehealth representatives, dementia advocates, a care partner, and a PLWD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The study cohort for the analysis of inpatient palliative care comprised 43,896 patients, while the cohort for the analysis of outpatient palliative care included a total of 37,430 patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 37,430 Evidence: moderate

Unmet PC needs were highly prevalent (78.2%). 4 key findings →

Participants: 359 Evidence: low

Participants with Lewy body dementia described losses associated with communication, continence, and energy leading to a progressive loss of independence. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

DNS conditions, particularly dementia, were associated with longer survival among non-oncologic HBPC patients. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

More than 50% of older adults with AD/ADRD visit the emergency department (ED) each year [3, 4] and those who do are seriously ill, have significant healthcare costs (e.g., hospital admissions, repeat ED visits) and mortality [4-6]. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Various approaches to advance care planning are in use and generally acceptable also for persons with dementia and their care partners. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

↑ 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