ArticleJournal of housing for the elderly2019
Testing of the Function Focused Environment Assessment and the Function Focused Policy Assessment in Assisted Living.
Article in Journal of housing for the elderly, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing the Implementation of Function-focused Care in Assisted Living Settings.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2021Trial
- Testing the Impact of FFC-AL-EIT on Psychosocial and Behavioral Outcomes in Assisted Living.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2021Trial
- Testing Function Focused Care for Acute Care using the Evidence Integration Triangle: Protocol description.Research in nursing & health · 2022Article
- Developing and Testing A Model of the Assisted Living Environment.Journal of aging and environment · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study tested two new instruments, the Function Focused Environment Assessment (FF-EA) and the Function Focused Policy Assessment (FF-PA). The measures were developed for clinical evaluation of AL settings to help optimize function and physical activity among residents. A total of 106 AL settings and 242 residents were included. There was evidence of item reliability (0.92) and interrater reliability (kappa=0.40, p=.015; percent agreement 85%) of FF-EA and item reliability (0.89) and interrater reliability (kappa=0.48, p=.001, percent agreement 82%) of the FF-PA, and support for validity of both measures based on INFIT and OUTFIT statistics and hypothesis testing.
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.