Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37342489›Full record

ArticleInnovation in aging2023

The Environmental Audit Screening Evaluation: Establishing Reliability and Validity of an Evidence-Based Design Tool.

Migette L Kaup, Margaret P Calkins, Adam Davey, Robert Wrublowsky

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovation in aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Migette L KaupDepartment of Interior Design & Fashion Studies, College of Health and Human Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3144-8268
Margaret P CalkinsIDEAS Institute, Cleveland Heights, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1091-8603
Adam DaveyDepartment of Behavioral Health and Nutrition, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0796-2283
Robert WrublowskyRAW Consultants, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Innovative Designs in Environments for an Aging Society · USKansas State University · USResearch Manitoba · CAUniversity of Delaware · US

Funding

Validation of The Environmental Audit Scoring Evaluation (EASE) ToolR21AG067010 · NIA · KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY · PI KAUP, MIGETTE · 2020 to 2021
$318k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG067010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Current assessment tools for long-term care environments have limited generalizability or ability to be linked to specific quality outcomes. To discriminate between different care models, tools are needed to assess important elements of the environmental design. The goal of this project was to systematically evaluate the reliability and validity of the Environmental Audit Screening Evaluation (EASE) tool to better enable the identification of best models in long-term care design to maintain quality of life for persons with dementia and their caregivers. Research Design and Methods: Twenty-eight living areas (LAs) were selected from 13 sites similar in organizational/operational commitment to person-centered care but with very different LA designs. LAs were stratified into 3 categories (traditional, hybrid, and household) based primarily on architectural/interior features. Three evaluators rated each LA using the Therapeutic Environment Screening Scale (TESS-NH), Professional Environmental Assessment Protocol (PEAP), Environmental Audit Tool (EAT-HC), and EASE. One of each type of LA was reassessed approximately 1 month after the original assessment. Results: EASE scores were compared against the scores of 3 existing tools to evaluate its construct validity. The EAT-HC was most closely related to the EASE ( Discussion and Implications: Neither of the 2 U.S.-based existing environmental assessment tools (PEAP and TESS-NH) discriminated between the 3 models of environments. The EAT-HC was most closely aligned with the EASE and performed similarly in differentiating between the traditional and household models, but the dichotomous scoring of the EAT-HC fails to capture environmental nuances. The EASE tool is comprehensive and accounts for nuanced design differences across settings.

Indexed as

Environmental assessmentHousehold modelLong-term careNursing homePerson-centered care

Identifiers

PMID37342489
PMCPMC10278985
OpenAlexW4367310579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.