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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 251–275 of 654 studies in Health systems and care delivery (page 11 of 27) · 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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 organise, 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.

Everyday ethics in assisted living facilitites: a framework for assessing resident-focused issues

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of gerontological nursing 2005-01

This article describes and illustrates a framework that may be used when assessing the moral basis of everyday issues that can affect residents of assisted living facilities. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Effectiveness of Palliative Care Interventions in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of personalized medicine 2024-06-28

The increasing elderly population is driving higher utilization rates of long-term care facilities, where residents often have multiple chronic diseases, making them potential candidates for palliative care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Accuracy of Caregiver Proxy Reports of Home Care Service Use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society 2016-12-27

Although much of the research on service use by older adults with dementia relies on proxy reports by informal caregivers, little research assesses the accuracy of these reports, and that which does exist, does not focus on home care services. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Assessment of changes in place of death of older adults who died from dementia in the United States, 2000–2014: a time-series cross-sectional analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Public Health 2020-06-10

Dementia decedents were more likely to die at home and other places and less likely to die at institutional settings over the study period. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Agitation in Demented Patients in an Acute Care Hospital: Prevalence, Disruptiveness, and Staff Burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. International Psychogeriatrics 2001-06-01

Ninety-five percent of the patients with dementia were reported to have at least one agitated behavior; 75% had at least one moderately disruptive behavior. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Risk for Fractures with Centrally Acting Muscle Relaxants: An Analysis of a National Medicare Advantage Claims Database

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2010-07-06

After adjusting demographic and clinical covariates, muscle relaxants, long-acting benzodiazepines, and short-acting benzodiazepines were associated with a high risk of fracture injuries, with odds ratios of 1.40 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.72; p < 0.001), 1.9 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.43; p < 0.001), and 1.33 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.55; p < 0.001), respectively. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

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

Trends in the use of advance care planning and cognitive assessment and care planning service visits: moving toward a palliative‐informed approach for ambulatory care of community‐dwelling persons with dementia and their caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

For 2018 and 2019, 3.5% and 5.4% received ACP visits, and 0.4% and 0.5% received CAACPS visits, similar to use reported elsewhere. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Effects of Changes in Multiple Chronic Conditions on Medical Costs among Older Adults in South Korea

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Healthcare 2022-04-15

This study aims to analyze the relationship between cognitive function and out-of-pocket cost of the state change of multiple chronic conditions in individuals aged 60 or older. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Impact of diagnosis timing on AD cost and healthcare utilization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2023-12-01

Early-diagnosed patients (N = 421) have a lower utilization rate of inpatient skilled nursing facility, nursing home and hospitalization than late-diagnosed patients (N = 2817) after being diagnosed with AD. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 421 Evidence: moderate

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

Patient-Driven Grouping Model and Home Health Use Among Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2026-07-04

In January 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented the Patient-Driven Groupings Model (PDGM), the most substantial revision to Medicare's home health (HH) prospective payment system since its introduction in 2000. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Long-Term Care in the St. John's Region: Impact of Single Entry and Prediction of Bed Need

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Healthcare Management Forum 2005-10-01

In 1996, the St. John's region had a population of 8,435 > or = 75 years, with 996 nursing home (NH) beds and 550 supervised care (SC) beds. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,044 Evidence: moderate

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

Disease-Specific Plan Switching Between Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. The Permanente Journal 2019-11-21

Beneficiaries with a new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias, hypertension, and psychiatric disorders had relatively high rates of switching into MA plans and low rates of switching out of MA plans. 5 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
  • 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