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 26–50 of 73 studies matching “nursing home cost” (page 2 of 3) · 29,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 73 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.

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.

Short-Horizon Metrics and the Persistence of Capacity-Debiting Practices in Nursing Homes

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Preprints.org 2026-10-13

Interventions that reduce functional capacity — antipsychotics or benzodiazepines for agitation, activity restriction for fall prevention, prolonged bed rest, incontinence product use, and catheterization — remain common in nursing homes even though functional decline is measured, publicly reported, and built into Five-Star ratings. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Monetary Costs of Dementia in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2013-04-04

Using a nationally representative survey of older Americans with in-home cognitive testing, researchers estimated that dementia cost the US between $157 billion and $215 billion in 2010, depending on how unpaid family caregiving time is valued. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 856 Evidence: high

The main cost drivers in dementia: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2014-10-16

The results of this review highlight the significant economic burden of dementia for patients, families and healthcare systems and thus are important for future health policy planning. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Eighty six thousand three hundred ninety-six beneficiaries were included (43,198 beneficiaries with ADRD and 43,198 beneficiaries without ADRD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Health Care Costs of Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Within a Medicare Managed Care Provider

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Medical Care 2020-07-23

Total monthly health care costs for individuals with ADRD are statistically greater (P<0.05) than controls beginning in the third month before diagnosis and remain significantly greater through the eighth month following diagnosis. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 927 Evidence: moderate

Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 1999-04-01

The results of the cost-effectiveness model presented here suggest that donepezil may be cost-effective but additional controlled data on long-term drug efficacy are needed. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

BackgroundThere are 5.5 million people living with dementia in the United States (US), with the cost of unpaid care making up a significant portion of the care costs. 2 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

Atrial fibrillation already accounts for a significant amount of National Health Service (NHS) funding, and over the coming years is highly likely to impose a growing cost on NHS budgets and the wider UK healthcare system. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Out of Pocket Costs for People with Dementia: A Comparison Across Insurance Types

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Among PWD with Medicaid, out-of-pocket costs for nursing homes and assisted living facilities were significantly higher (60%) compared to those TM (33%) and MA (30%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Finally, organizational characteristics (e.g., size and proprietary status) appear to be important enabling factors influencing the propensity to provide specialty care in dedicated units. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) were used to examine the relation between severity of Alzheimer's disease, as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and costs of caring. 4 key findings →

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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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