Observational studyJournal of the American Medical Directors Association2023
Online Customer Reviews of Assisted Living Communities: Association with Community, County, and State Factors.
Observational study in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Public Reporting Systems for Evaluating Health Care Quality: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- User-Generated Google Maps Ratings, State Staffing and Training Regulations, and the Quality of Hospice Care in Assisted Living Communities.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOnline reviews provided by users of assisted living communities may offer a unique source of heretofore unexamined data. We explored online reviews as a possible source of information about these communities and examined the association between the reviews and aspects of state regulations, while controlling for assisted living, county, and state market-level factors.
designCross-sectional, observational study. SETTING AND
participantsSample included 149,265 reviews for 8828 communities.
methodsPrimary (eg, state regulations) and secondary (eg, Medicare Beneficiary Summary Files) data were used. County-level factors were derived from the Area Health Resource Files, and state-level factors from the integrated Public Use Microdata series. Information on state regulations was obtained from a previously compiled regulatory dataset. Average assisted living rating score, calculated as the mean of posted online reviews, was the outcome of interest, with a higher score indicating a more positive review. We used word cloud to visualize how often words appeared in 1-star and 5-star reviews. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between online rating and a set of community, county, and state variables. Models were weighted by the number of reviews per assisted living bed.
resultsOverall, 76% of communities had online reviews. We found lower odds of positive reviews in communities with greater proportions of Medicare/Medicaid residents [odds ratio (OR) = 0.986; P < .001], whereas communities located in micropolitan areas (compared with urban), and those in states with more direct care worker hours (per week per bed) had greater odds of high rating (OR = 1.722; P < .001 and OR = 1.018, P < .05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Online reviews are increasingly common, including in long-term care. These reviews are a promising source of information about important aspects of satisfaction, particularly in care settings that lack a public reporting infrastructure. We found several significant associations between online ratings and community-level factors, suggesting these reviews may be a valuable source of information to consumers and policy makers.
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.