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 476–500 of 654 studies in Health systems and care delivery (page 20 of 27) · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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 “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.

Hospital dementia care discourse on Reddit advanced 4 negative sentiment themes: (1) fear of poor medication management, hydration, and hygiene, (2) loss of patient advocacy, (3) precipitation of advance directive discussions, and (4) delayed discharge and loss of nursing home bed. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

We found that COVID patients initially experienced substantially longer hospital stays (8.3 vs 4.6 days) and higher 30-day mortality (34% vs 5%) compared to patients without COVID. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

These findings highlight potential access and quality-of-care issues in PR, with implications for Medicare Advantage benchmarks. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,965 Evidence: low

Amyloid-targeting antibody therapies for Alzheimer's disease require substantial diagnostic infrastructure including amyloid PET imaging, repeated MRI monitoring, and specialized clinical evaluation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this update, we examine a checklist for real-world evidence use in Medicare drug price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act, a review of health technology assessment reassessments across major health technology assessment agencies, and two complementary studies that used natural experiment approaches to explore the relationship between herpes zoster vaccination and reduced dementia risk. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Florbetaben (FBB) is a radiopharmaceutical approved by the FDA and EMA in 2014 for the positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain amyloid deposition in patients with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer's disease (AD) or other causes of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The 2014 Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act systemized audits of long hospice stays, and the 2016 two-tier payment system decreased daily reimbursement rates after 60 days of enrollment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The outbreaks added significant additional stress to the nursing workforce, which has historically experienced high turnover, chronic staffing shortages, and increased burnout in long‐term care settings. 1 key finding →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

In 2024, 90% of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees were in a plan that required prior authorization of home health care. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The “Rising Tide” of dementia in Canada

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Canadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada 2015-06-17

The prevalence of dementia was estimated at 44.4 million people worldwide in 2013, and in the absence of any significant new scientific discovery, prevalence rates are estimated to increase to 75.6 million in 2030 and 135.5 million in 2050.1 Alzheimer’s disease is the most common irreversible form of dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Interventions to optimize prescribing for older people in care homes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2019-07-09

In 2017, the United Nations reported that the world's population aged 60 years and over was 962 million people, over twice as many older persons than was reported in 1980. 1 key finding →

Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low

↑ 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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