Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32739282›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Directors Association2020

Unmet and Unimportant Preferences Among Nursing Home Residents: What Are Key Resident and Facility Factors?

Yinfei Duan, Tetyana P Shippee, Weiwen Ng, Odichinma Akosionu, Mark Woodhouse, Haitao Chu, Jasjit S Ahluwalia, Joseph E Gaugler, Beth A Virnig, John R Bowblis

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yinfei DuanUniversity of Minnesota School of Nursing, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: duanx152@umn.edu.
Tetyana P ShippeeDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Weiwen NgDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Odichinma AkosionuDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Mark WoodhouseDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Haitao ChuDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jasjit S AhluwaliaDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
Joseph E GauglerDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Beth A VirnigDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
John R BowblisDepartment of Economics, Miami University Farmer School of Business, Oxford, OH, USA.
University of Minnesota · USBrown University · USMiami University · US

Funding

System Factors and Racial Disparities in Nursing Home Quality of Life and CareR01MD010729 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI SHIPPEE, TETYANA P. · 2016 to 2020
$2.4M
NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD010729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Preferences Assessment Tool (PAT) in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assesses 16 resident preferences for daily routines and activities. Although integrating important preferences into care planning is essential to provide person-centered care in nursing homes (NHs), preferences rated as important but unmet or unimportant may not receive much attention. This study aims to (1) identify the prevalence of unmet preferences and unimportant preferences, and (2) examine their associations with resident and facility-level characteristics.

designThis is a longitudinal study of residents in NHs. SETTINGS AND

participantsWe used data from 2012-2017 MDS assessments of long-stay residents aged 65 or older in 295 Minnesota NHs. In total, 51,859 assessments from 25,668 residents were included.

methodsGeneralized linear mixed models were used to analyze resident and facility-level characteristics associated with having any unmet preferences, and with the number of unimportant preferences.

resultsAcross all years for both daily routine preferences and activity preferences, 3.3% to 5.1% of residents reported that at least 1 or more preference was important but unmet, and 10.0% to 16.6% reported that 4 or more out of the 8 preferences were unimportant. Residents with higher depressive symptoms, and poorer physical and sensory function were more likely to report unmet preferences. Residents with poorer physical and sensory function, and living in rural facilities and facilities having fewer activity staff hours per resident day were more likely to report unimportant preferences. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Residents with functional and sensory limitations and living in underresourced NHs are more likely to report that preferences are unimportant, or that they are important but unmet. It is important for staff to elicit preferences that truly matter for residents, and to enable residents to meet their preferences.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingNursing HomesHumansLongitudinal Studieslong-term careNursing homesolder adultsperson-centered carequality of liferesident preferences

Identifiers

PMID32739282
PMCPMC9129870
OpenAlexW3045731586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.