Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30424725›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2018

Mixed methods developmental evaluation of the CHOICE program: a relationship-centred mealtime intervention for long-term care.

Sarah Wu, Jill M Morrison, Hilary Dunn-Ridgeway, Vanessa Vucea, Sabrina Iuglio, Heather Keller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Relationship-Centered Care for Older Adults in Long-Term Care Homes: A Scoping Review.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Nutritional Care for Institutionalized Persons with Dementia: An Integrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Inter-Rater Reliability of the Mealtime Scan+.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2019
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah WuUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Jill M MorrisonUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Hilary Dunn-RidgewayResearch Institute for Aging, 250 Laurelwood Drive, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 0E2, Canada.
Vanessa VuceaUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Sabrina IuglioUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Heather KellerUniversity of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada. hkeller@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-7782-8103
University of Waterloo · CAResearch Institute for Aging · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMealtimes are important to quality of life for residents in long-term care (LTC). CHOICE (which stands for Connecting, Honouring dignity, Offering support, supporting Identity, Creating opportunities, and Enjoyment) is a multi-component intervention to improve relationship-centred care (RCC) and overall mealtime experience for residents. The objective of this developmental evaluation was to determine: a) if the dining experience (e.g. physical, social and RCC practices) could be modified with the CHOICE Program, and b) how program components needed to be adapted and/or if new components were required.

methodsA mixed methods study conducted between April-November 2016 included two home areas (64 residents; 25 care staff/home management) within a single LTC home in Ontario. Mealtime Scan (MTS), which measures mealtime experience at the level of the dining room, was used to evaluate the effectiveness of CHOICE implementation at four time points. Change in physical, social, RCC dining environment ratings and overall quality of the mealtime experience over time was determined with linear mixed-effects analyses (i.e., repeated measures). Semi-structured interviews (n = 9) were conducted with home staff to identify what components of the intervention worked well and what improvements could be made.

resultsPhysical and overall mealtime environment ratings showed improvement over time in both areas; one home area also improved social ratings (p < 0.05). Interviews revealed in-depth insights into the program and implementation process: i) Knowing the context and culture to meet staff and resident needs; ii) Getting everyone on board, including management; iii) Keeping communication lines open throughout the process; iv) Sharing responsibility and accountability for mealtime goals and challenges; v) Empowering and supporting staff's creative mealtime initiatives.

conclusionsThis developmental evaluation demonstrated the potential value of CHOICE. Findings suggest a need to: extend the time to tailor program components; empower home staff in change management; and provide increased coaching.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedNursing HomesAgedAged, 80 and overEatingFemaleHumansLong-Term CareMaleMealsPatient-Centered CarePilot ProjectsProgram EvaluationQuality of LifeComplex intervention implementationDiningEvaluationImplementation scienceLong-term careMealtimesPersonal support workersProgram developmentRelationship-centred careResidential care

Identifiers

PMID30424725
PMCPMC6234643
OpenAlexW2901791332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.