ArticleContemporary clinical trials2015
Assessing physical and cognitive function of older adults in continuing care retirement communities: who are we recruiting?
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing recruitment strategies for healthy older adults in prevention clinical trials: A scoping review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Rates of Cognitive and Functional Impairments in Older Adults Residing in a Continuing Care Senior Housing Community.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2022Article
- Programmed Activity Offerings and Attendance Patterns in Assisted Living.Activities, adaptation & aging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn partnership with six Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), the current study focused on the feasibility of recruiting a representative sample of residents and then assessing their functional health. MATERIAL AND
methodsWith our guidance, each of the six CCRCs recruited a volunteer (V-Group) and random (R-Group) sample of independent living residents. We provided face-to-face training and ongoing remote electronic support to the CCRC staff on the testing battery and the Web-based data entry system. The testing battery was consisted of demographic, physical function, and psychosocial assessments.
resultsAfter training, CCRC staff were receptive to the study goals and successfully used the data entry Website. In the V-Group (N=189), 76% were already participating in CCRC wellness programs. We attempted to recruit a random, unbiased (R-Group) sample of 20% (n=105) of eligible residents; however, only 30 consented to be tested and 70% of this group (21/30) were also already participating in a wellness program. Mean age of all participants was 82.9 years. The V-Group had a higher Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) total score (least squares mean [SE], 9.4 [0.2] vs 8.2 [0.4], p=0.014) and SPPB gait speed component score (3.5 [0.1] vs 3.0 [0.2], p=0.007) and spent more time doing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (300 [21] vs 163 [49] min/week, p=0.013) compared to the R-Group. IMPLICATIONS: While it is feasible to recruit, assess and transmit data on residents' functional health in partnership with CCRCs, population validity was severely compromised. Attention needs to be given to the development of more effective methods to recruit less interested residents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.