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 626–650 of 654 studies in Health systems and care delivery (page 26 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.

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.

Assembly Votes Challenge Threats to Patient Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 22 out of 100. Psychiatric News 2006-12-01

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Association NewsFull AccessAssembly Votes Challenge Threats to Patient CareKen HausmanKen HausmanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Dec 2006https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.41.23.0004Patient care issues had a prominent place on the agenda for the APA Assembly's November meeting in Washington, D.C., and several dealt with prescribing concerns in a health care environment that is not always patient friendly. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This includes adapting and disseminating care delivery innovations from one system to another, as well as measuring and sharing in the improved outcomes and reduced costs that might result. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Alzheimer's and Aducanumab: Unjust Profits and False Hopes

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. The Hastings Center report 2021-06-23

Accelerated approval of aducanumab for mild Alzheimer's by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 7, 2021, has generated substantial medical, scientific, and ethical controversy. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

At Home Versus in a Nursing Home: Long-Term Care Settings and Marginal Utility

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Not indexed 2023

Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Family physicians' attitudes toward people with dementia and their association with empathy

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-10-14

Family physicians' empathy levels were independently associated with general, supportive, and accepting attitudes toward people with dementia, but not with exclusionary attitudes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 412 Evidence: low

Internet use for health information was significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinical Efficacy of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Retrospective Observational Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Preprints.org 2026-07-06

Functional decline, as assessed by CGA, was more prominent in patients undergoing hemodialysis than in those not undergoing hemodialysis. 3 key findings →

Participants: 328 Evidence: low

Recent mechanistic evidence identifies lithium deficiency as a driver of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) pathogenesis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Pharmacotherapy for Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementias in Long-Term Care: A Real-World EHR Study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-01-19

More than one-quarter of residents with ADRD remain untreated with guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy, and treatment varied significantly by non-clinical predictors. 5 key findings →

Participants: 359,801 Evidence: low

Real-terms UK government spending on health-related long-term care grew by £6.4 billion (22.9%) between 2013 and 2022, from £27.9 to £34.3 billion. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Preventive and Need-Driven Use of Dental Services among Community-Dwelling Older People with Long-Term Care Needs

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-01-30

Oral health is a key component of quality of life among older adults, yet maintaining preventive dental care becomes increasingly difficult for those with long-term care (LTC) needs. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,055 Evidence: low

Passive sleep monitoring identified physiologically interpretable sleep markers associated with next-day agitation occurrence, supporting prospective evaluation of under-mattress sensing as a source of short-term risk information for dementia care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate

Contexts and mechanisms associated with attendees’ and caregivers’ social determinants of health, and system-level contexts and mechanisms that influence ADPs are important knowledge gaps to be addressed by studies and to be incorporated in our program theory in the future. 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

MinderCare: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a digitally enabled dementia care service

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-06-22

Strengths and limitations of this study This study evaluates a digitally enabled remote monitoring model for people living with dementia that integrates passive in-home sensors and algorithm-derived digital biomarkers to detect clinically relevant changes such as infection risk, behavioural disturbance and physiological deterioration. 5 key findings →

Participants: 100 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 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