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 201–225 of 654 studies in Health systems and care delivery (page 9 of 27) · 28,580 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.

Evaluating The Accuracy Of Medicare Risk Adjustment For Alzheimer’s Disease And Related Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Health Affairs 2022-09-01

In 2020 Medicare reintroduced Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to risk-adjust Medicare Advantage and accountable care organization (ACO) payments. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Of 15,390 narratives collected from 3139 patients with PsA for exploratory analysis, physical concepts were the most common (81.5%), followed by emotional (50.7%), cognitive (20.0%), role activity (8.1%), and social (5.6%) concepts. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,139 Evidence: low

As they mix together, they become purple.2 According to a few previous reports, PUBS often occurred in elderly women who are bedridden, chronically catheterized, and constipated.3 In addition, PUBS was found in alkaline urine and with higher bacterial counts.3,4 Because of lack of significant patient numbers, the clinical background, underlining diseases, urinanalysis, and incidence of PUBS have not been well documented. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate

Residents in memory-care assisted living had a lower adjusted risk of hospitalization (risk difference = -1.8 percentage points [P = .014], hazard ratio = 0.93 [0.87-1.00]), a lower risk of nursing-home admission (risk difference = -2.2 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.87 [-.79-0.95]), and a lower risk of a long-term nursing home admission (risk difference = -1.1 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.71 [0.57-0.88]). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Long-term care market competition and nursing home dementia special care units

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Medical care 2007-08

Competition from another NH-based SCU was associated with the presence of an SCU in a NH [adjusted odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-6.6] but there were no associations with other measures. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Five overarching themes derived from the interviews were as follows: (a) My life still has value and meaning, (b) I am my own unique individual, (c) I place my trust in other people, (d) The future worries me, and (e) I accept and embrace what life brings. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Using the time-dependent Cox model, the adjusted dementia rate ratios (95% confidence-interval) among current and former users were 0.90(0.70-1.16) and 0.89 (0.71-1.10), respectively. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The agreement between the two measures of dementia differed by age: in 2017, 79.2% of hospital claims for patients aged 66–74 had a diagnosis of dementia compared to older age categories that had dementia noted in over 85% of records. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,273,348 Evidence: low

Role of PCPs in diagnosing dementia in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-10-01

Among a matched sample of 15,410,030 beneficiaries, accounting for both provider and patient characteristics, the incident dementia diagnosis rate was 0.11 percentage points lower for MA beneficiaries compared to TM beneficiaries attributed to the same PCP. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This study examines the difference in functional outcomes among Traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) during a home health admission, which is unknown. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 81,735 Evidence: moderate

Among 421,131 MA beneficiaries, telehealth use increased sharply in Q2 2020 for both ADRD and non-ADRD groups, peaking at 33.9 and 30.6% respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The expert panel from Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia discussed the current situation of various topics related to the diagnostics, general management and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in these Central Eastern European (CEE) countries, representing around 88 million population. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Choline alfoscerate, a cholinergic precursor with limited evidence of efficacy in dementia management, has been used for various cognitive impairments in Korea. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% 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