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 1–25 of 199 studies in Costs and economics (page 1 of 8) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 199 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.

What “Costs and economics” covers

Costs and economics — What dementia costs — to families, to insurers and to the country — and who ends up paying.

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.

Dementia Incidence, Burden and Cost of Care: A Filipino Community-Based Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 82 out of 100. Frontiers in public health 2021-05-14

The crude incidence rate was 16 (CI: 13-20) cases per 1,000 person-years (pyr) with 17 (CI: 12-21) per 1,000 pyr for females and 14 (CI: 9-21) per 1,000 pyr for males. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 748 Evidence: high

EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0·03 (95% CI 0·01-0·05; p=0·0002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·61-1·08, p=0·14), admissions to institutions (0·86, 0·63-1·18; p=0·4), and death (0·85, 0·69-1·06, p=0·17) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0·0001). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,620 Evidence: high

Contemporary healthcare policies are designed to shape the conditions that can help delay the institutionalization of patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 9,043 Evidence: high

Letters16 October 2007Adjusted-Dose Warfarin versus Aspirin for Preventing Stroke in Patients with Atrial FibrillationRobert G. The study's important results indicate that the relative efficacy and safety of warfarin for stroke prevention can be extended to very elderly patients who are managed by nonspecialists. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 973 Evidence: high

Among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia who visited an ED, there was no evidence that hospital admission was associated with mortality rates. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 872,085 Evidence: moderate

Our findings demonstrate that 10-year CP exposure was associated with a 1.707-fold increase in the risk of developing AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,291 Evidence: moderate

Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 428 Evidence: high

Cohort Profile: The Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. International Journal of Epidemiology 2021-12-13

LASI is India’s first ageing study and the world’s largest in terms of sample size, and will provide comprehensive longitudinal data for designing policies and programmes targeted toward the overall well-being of the older population. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia has effectiveness advantages over, and may be more cost-effective than, treatment as usual. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 91 Evidence: high

Residents enrolled in managed care (n = 133) were more likely to have do-not-hospitalize orders compared with those in traditional Medicare fee for service (n = 158) (63.7% vs 50.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4), were less likely to be transferred to the hospital for acute illness (3.8% vs 15.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.5), had more primary care visits per 90 days (mean [SD], 4.8 [2.6] vs 4.2 [5.0]; adjusted rate ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6), and had more nurse practitioner visits (3.0 [2.1] vs 0.8 [2.6]; adjusted rate ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.2-4.1). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 133 Evidence: moderate

Our sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,361,950 Evidence: moderate

Epidemiological evidence reveals that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), including dementia and Parkinson's disease (PD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,651 Evidence: moderate

Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2022, we randomly allocated 204 participants (109 [53%] women and 95 [47%] men) to the intervention group and 98 (60 [61%] women and 38 [39%] men) to the control group. 218 (72%) participants at 6 months and 178 (59%) at 12 months provided cost data. 2 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 302 Evidence: high

Cost of dementia in Medicare managed care: a systematic literature review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. The American journal of managed care 2019-08-01

Despite the growth in Medicare managed care enrollment, only 9 papers report the costs of care for individuals with ADRD within these plans, and only 1 study reports data less than 10 years old. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Monetary Costs of Dementia in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2013-04-04

Using a nationally representative survey of older Americans with in-home cognitive testing, researchers estimated that dementia cost the US between $157 billion and $215 billion in 2010, depending on how unpaid family caregiving time is valued. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 856 Evidence: high

The Burden of Health Care Costs for Patients With Dementia in the Last 5 Years of Life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015-11-17

This study followed a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries who died and compared total health and long-term care spending in their final five years of life. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,702 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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