ArticlePloS one2021
Prioritizing supports and services to help older adults age in place: A Delphi study comparing the perspectives of family/friend care partners and healthcare stakeholders.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proxy indicators to support independent ageing-in-place in older people with frailty: a Delphi-style expert consultation survey.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Machine learning for predicting institutionalization and mortality risks among older home care recipients with routinely collected need assessment data: explainable AI for long-term care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Physical Function and Residential Relocation of Older Adults Living With Chronic Conditions.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026Article
- Developing a Set of Key Principles for Care Planning Within Older Adult Care Homes: A Modified Delphi Survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Development of a New Measure of Intergenerational Contact.Journal of adult development · 2025Article
- Between hope and future planning: the dementia journey for care partners through the lens of relational autonomy.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Developing a set of key principles for care planning within older adult care homes: study protocol for a modified Delphi survey.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Developing and Tailoring a Person-Centred Pathway for Mental Health Care for People Receiving Dialysis.Nephron · 2025Review
- EXploring Patterns of Use and Effects of Adult Day Programs to Improve Trajectories of Continuing Care (EXPEDITE): Protocol for a Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Development of a frailty prevention program including nutrition and exercise interventions for older adults in senior daycare centers in South Korea using a mixed methods research design.Nutrition research and practice · 2024Article
- Inequality in housing transitions during cognitive decline.PloS one · 2023Article
- Preferences for assistive healthcare technology by older Chinese adults: A discrete choice experiment.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAging in place (AIP) is a policy strategy designed to help older adults remain in their community. While planners internationally have modified aspects of the older adult care continuum (e.g., home care, assisted living, nursing homes) to facilitate AIP, further improvements to community-based supports and services are also required. This study compared and constrasted the community-based factors (e.g., supports, services and personal strategies or characteristics) that family/friend care partners and healthcare stakeholders (i.e., planners/providers) view as most important to help older adults successfully AIP.
methodsAn initial list of factors shown to influence AIP was created from the academic literature. These factors were used to develop a Delphi survey implemented separately on care partners and healthcare stakeholders. Respondents rated the importance of each factor using a 10-point Likert Scale (1 = not important; 10 = absolutely critical). Consensus in each group was defined when at least 80% of participants scored a factor ≥8 ("very important"), with an interquartile range ≤2. Respondents suggested additional factors during Delphi round one.
resultsCare partners (N = 25) and healthcare stakeholders (N = 36) completed two and three Delphi rounds, respectively. These groups independently agreed that the following 3 (out of 27) factors were very important to help older adults age in place: keeping one's home safe, maintaining strong inter-personal relationships, and coordinating care across formal providers. While healthcare stakeholders did not reach consensus on other factors, care partners agreed that 7 additional factors (e.g., access to affordable housing, having mental health programs) were important for AIP.
conclusionsCompared to healthcare stakeholders, care partners felt that more and diverse community-based factors are important to support older adults to successfully AIP. Future research should replicate these findings in other jurisdictions, examine the availability and accessibility of the priority factors, and develop sustainable solutions to enhance their effectiveness.
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.