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

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–10 of 10 studies in Health systems and care delivery with an author at University of California, Los Angeles (US) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 10 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.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

What “Health systems and care delivery” covers

Health systems and care delivery — How health systems organize, coordinate and pay for dementia care, and where and how people with dementia actually receive it.

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.

Penny-wise but Pound-foolish: The Hidden Costs of Step Therapy for Overactive Bladder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Journal of Urology 2023-03-23

Lenore Ackerman *Correspondence: David Geffen School of Medicine, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Box 951738, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1738 telephone: 310-794-0206; E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-7649 Department of Urology and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003430AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Overactive bladder, including symptoms of increased urinary frequency, urgency, and incontinence, is more prevalent than diabetes, affecting 1 in 6 adults in the United States.1,2 Occurring more commonly among women and older adults, untreated overactive bladder is associated with reduced quality of life, increased incidence of depression and anxiety, increased risk of experiencing falls/fractures, and increased institutionalization. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Patient and Caregiver Benefit From a Comprehensive Dementia Care Program: 1‐Year Results From the UCLA Alzheimer's and Dementia Care Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2019-07-29

At year 1, persons with ADRD improved on all scales, except MMSE and functional status measures; caregivers improved on all scales. 5 key findings →

Participants: 554 Evidence: low

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

Site of death among individuals with and without dementia in 2016–2018

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2022-02-17

Individuals living with dementia often have limited capacity to express their care preferences at the final stage of life, and therefore, are at risk of receiving end-of-life care that may not align with their preferences.1 While most people prefer to be at home in their final days of life,2 research has shown that individuals with dementia are less likely to die in a home or community setting compared to those without dementia.3, 4 Studies also suggest that the percentage of individuals with dementia who died in a home or community setting has been increasing over time.5, 6 This study sought to update the literature by examining the association between dementia status and site of death, and by comparing the trends in site of death between decedents with and without dementia using recent national data. 5 key findings →

Participants: 813,213 Evidence: low

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

Physicians in Supporting Roles in Chronic Disease Care: The CareMore Model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011-01-01

In most of these nonacademic healthcare delivery systems, traditional randomized clinical trial designs to evaluate effectiveness are too rigid, too expensive, and take too long to achieve results. 5 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

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

Coverage and Prior Authorization Policies for Semaglutide and Tirzepatide in Medicare Part D Plans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-08-29

This cross-sectional study examines trends in coverage of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, semaglutide and tirzepatide, and prior authorization requirements among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Disparities in High-Risk Medication Use—Implications for Health Equity and Deprescribing Practices

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-04-14

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use-defined as the use of high-risk medications that can increase the risk of adverse events such as physical, cognitive, and functional decline; delirium; hospitalizations; and mortality-remains a significant concern in older adults in the US.Numerous guidelines, including the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 1 and the STOPP criteria, 2 define PIMs as medications for which the risk of adverse effects outweighs potential benefits or are inappropriate for specific populations or disease states, such dementia or kidney disease.PIM use may be particularly harmful in populations experiencing other health care disparities, as communities experiencing other consequences of health care inequity, including limited access to physicians or pharmacies, greater financial stress, and a higher comorbidity burden, may experience disproportionate effects from the adverse consequences of PIM use. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Quality of Care Provided in a Special Needs Plan Using a Nurse Care Manager Model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011-10-01

Based on physician medical records alone, the 231 high-risk participants (mean age 77, 67% women) received recommended care for 53% of 5,569 evaluated clinical circumstances, ranging from 12% for end-of-life care to 78% for diabetes mellitus. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Impact of Conservative Management vs. Dialysis Transition on Cognition in a National Cohort of Patients with Advanced CKD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2025-10-01

In 18,383 CM patients PS-matched to 18,383 dialysis patients, unadjusted Cox models showed dialysis transition was associated with higher risk of dementia, MCI, or combined dementia/MCI vs. CM: HRs (95%CIs) 1.40 (1.32-1.48), 1.64 (1.46, 1.85), and 1.42 (1.34, 1.49). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 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