The overall advance care planning behavioural intention was at a moderately high level. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Appendix B. Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three types emerged from 24 caregivers through a Varimax rotation and explained 53% of the total variance. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Appendix A. Interview guides on experiences with advance care planning, factors influencing readiness for advance care planning, and the use of conversation aids among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Palliative care should be introduced as a culturally tailored set of services to assist families in ways that align with their values and caregiving practices. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Antecedents of acute care use and poor prognosis may suggest late utilization of palliative care among PLWD and lack of palliative care needs screening. 1 key finding →
Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
31/100
Early involvement in care planning is essential for people with dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although there were differences between and within the countries, end-of-life care was often affected by the socioeconomic contexts, which represent barriers for access to healthcare services; under-tapped informal caregivers' potential; societal norms and cultural expectations around care and informal caregiving; the dementia-trajectory itself; and an inadequate assurance of policies, skilled workforce, and services. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
31/100
Understanding dementia beliefs among Vietnamese people is crucial for the development of evidence-based interventions to promote positive help-seeking behaviors when facing the risk of dementia for themselves and their relatives. 3 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
BackgroundAlzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) affect nearly half of assisted living (AL) residents, the majority of whom have palliative care (PC) needs at the end of life (EOL). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ACP can be useful for person-centered dementia care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Palliative care offers specialized care /support to persons with advanced disease, including Older Persons living with dementia related problems. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This Journal is not only a new publication but also the culmination of a shared vision and a timely response to one of the most significant demographic shifts in human history: the rapid aging of the South Asian population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Advance Care Planning (ACP) is a continuous process that enables individuals to discuss and document their preferences for future care in the event of terminal illness or incapacitation. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As rates of dementia increase, the need for care is clear. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
30/100
The basic social process that emerged from the data was that of nurses trying to identify an ACP level and craft a corresponding care plan that they believed would optimise residents' comfort in LTC during both acute medical events and at the end-of-life (EOL). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is a syndrome characterised by the development of multiple cognitive deficits and behavioural changes that significantly interfere with various aspects of life. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Number of patients on the unit with an ACP increased between May 2024 and January 2025, from a low of 0% on 03/06/24 to a high of 53% on 12/12/24. 5 key findings →
Participants: 67 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
How should I approach advance care planning (ACP) and goals of care (GOC) discussions with patients living with dementia? 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
30/100
As dementia progresses to advanced stages, the need for compassionate and person-centred care becomes paramount. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Six key themes were identified: Inadequate preparation, guidance and access to appropriate resources; Taboo and misunderstanding: talking about death; Dementia as a terminal illness and the role of palliative care; Key time points, critical events and decisions; Planning ahead not in reality; Family issues and dynamics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
認知症を有する人のためのアドバンス・ケア・プランニング（ACP）では，意思決定能力の揺らぎを前提に，「過去」の意思と「現在」の意向を統合し，非言語的サインも含めて本人の推定意思をくみ取ることが重要である．家族を本人の想いを伝える代弁者として位置づけ，その心理的負担を医療・ケアチームが支える必要がある．また，関係依存性自律を踏まえ，多職種協働で本人中心の対話を継続することが求められる．さらに，想いのかけらを情報通信技術（ICT）等で共有し，ACPを組織的に実施する体制整備が重要である． 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Forty studies were included. Key stakeholders included healthcare professionals (HCPs); family members and caregivers; PWD; dyads (PWD and their caregivers); the broader public; policymakers; and researchers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →