Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29790930›Full record

ArticleThe Gerontologist2019

A Machine Learning Recommender System to Tailor Preference Assessments to Enhance Person-Centered Care Among Nursing Home Residents.

Gerald C Gannod, Katherine M Abbott, Kimberly Van Haitsma, Nathan Martindale, Alexandra Heppner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Gerontologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Machine Learning in Aging: An Example of Developing Prediction Models for Serious Fall Injury in Older Adults.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gerald C GannodDepartment of Computer Science, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville.
Katherine M AbbottDepartment of Sociology and Gerontology, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.
Kimberly Van HaitsmaCollege of Nursing, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Nathan MartindaleDepartment of Computer Science, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville.
Alexandra HeppnerScripps Gerontology Center, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.

Funding

Assessing preferences for everyday living in the nursing home: reliability and coR21NR011334 · NINR · POLISHER RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI VANHAITSMA, KIMBERLY S · 2011 to 2012
$448k
NINR NIH HHS R21 NR011334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Nursing homes (NHs) using the Preferences for Everyday Living Inventory (PELI-NH) to assess important preferences and provide person-centered care find the number of items (72) to be a barrier to using the assessment. Research Design and Methods: Using a sample of n = 255 NH resident responses to the PELI-NH, we used the 16 preference items from the MDS 3.0 Section F to develop a machine learning recommender system to identify additional PELI-NH items that may be important to specific residents. Much like the Netflix recommender system, our system is based on the concept of collaborative filtering whereby insights and predictions (e.g., filters) are created using the interests and preferences of many users. The algorithm identifies multiple sets of "you might also like" patterns called association rules, based upon responses to the 16 MDS preferences that recommends an additional set of preferences with a high likelihood of being important to a specific resident. Results: In the evaluation of the combined apriori and logistic regression approach, we obtained a high recall performance (i.e., the ratio of correctly predicted preferences compared with all predicted preferences and nonpreferences) and high precision (i.e., the ratio of correctly predicted rules with respect to the rules predicted to be true) of 80.2% and 79.2%, respectively. Discussion and Implications: The recommender system successfully provides guidance on how to best tailor the preference items asked of residents and can support preference capture in busy clinical environments, contributing to the feasibility of delivering person-centered care.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNursing HomesPatient-Centered CarePatient PreferenceHumansInterviews as TopicLogistic ModelsLong-Term CareQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29790930
PMCPMC6326251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.