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 101–123 of 123 studies in End-of-life care published 2025 (page 5 of 5) · 31,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 123 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 “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.

Exploring advance care planning discourses in scottish dementia policies: A critical discourse analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 2025-01-01

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

‘Getting Everyone on the Same Page’: Long‐Term‐Care Nurses' Experiences With Advance Care Planning

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100. International Journal of Older People Nursing 2025-02-13

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

Needs of key stakeholders to make advance care plans and advance directives for people with dementia: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) 2025-11-10

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

Communication and end-of-life care in dementia: insights from a close family member working in healthcare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. British Journal of Community Nursing 2025-07-31

There is very little documented evidence on the experiences of healthcare professionals caring for their own family outside of their role. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Neuropalliative Care in Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. CONTINUUM Lifelong Learning in Neurology 2025-12-01

Patients and their caregivers and families confronting dementia often face heavy burdens from difficult-to-control symptoms, uncertainty about the future, and a high risk of care partner burnout. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Unmet Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Care Needs and Associated Risk Factors Among Older Adults with Dementia at the End of Life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 2025-03-05

This paper examined the prevalence of and risk factors associated with unmet needs for activities of daily living (ADL) for older adults dying with dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Needs of key stakeholders to make advance care plans and advance directives for people with dementia: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100. Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) 2025-11-19

Dementia-specific ACP/AD require a relational, flexible and ethically grounded approach that evolves with the individual’s condition. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Advances in Intervention Strategies for Advance Care Planning in Dementia Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) 2025-11-01

Advance care planning aims to allow individuals to discuss their goals and preferences for future medical and nursing care with family members and medical personnel in advance when they still have decision-making ability, so that individuals can receive medical care that meets their preferences when they lose their decision-making ability. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Designing a Palliative Care Pathway for Enhanced Dementia Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Riverside Health has developed a new palliative care pathway to serve as an innovative standard of person-centered care for persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Validity and Reliability of a Chinese-Tailored Scale for the Evaluation of End-of-Life Care in Dementia Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 26 out of 100. British Journal of Hospital Medicine 2025-07-22

In this study, a preliminary reliability assessment on the Chinese version of the EOLD scale was conducted, revealing that the three subscales exhibit strong internal consistency in reliability and structural validity. 2 key findings →

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
  • 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