Cited by 72Geriatric Care and Nursing HomesAging, Health, and DisabilityAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues

Honoring the Everyday Preferences of Nursing Home Residents: Perceived Choice and Satisfaction With Care

Open access
Bangerter, Lauren R., Heid, Allison R., Abbott, Katherine, Van Haitsma, Kimberly·2017·The Gerontologist

Abstract

Purpose of the Study: The nursing home (NH) culture change movement advocates for residents to be able to make choices about important aspects of their care. This study seeks to understand NH residents’ perceptions of choice that they have in the care they receive while in the NH setting. We examine the association between residents’ perceived choice and satisfaction with care preferences being met using a mixed methods approach. Design and Methods: Using thePreferences of Everyday Living Inventory, cognitive interviews were completed with 39 NH residents which resulted in a total of 600 item-level ratings of residents’ perceived choice and satisfaction and corresponding open-ended comments on choice. Results: Quantitative findings revealed a significant Pearson correlation between residents’ perceived choice and satisfaction (r = .47,p < .001). Participants’ responses of free choice were linked to significantly higher ratings of satisfaction compared to no choice and some choice. Responses of some choice were associated with significantly higher ratings of satisfaction than the no choice group. Open-ended comments provided greater depth in understanding regarding how residents perceive the level of choice in fulfilling their preferences. Implications: This study establishes a positive association between NH residents’ perceived choice and feelings of satisfaction with their care preferences being met. Offering choices that are deemed favorable or solicited from NH residents is a fundamental step toward increasing resident satisfaction with NH care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geront/gnv697

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Bangerter, L. R., Heid, A. R., Abbott, K., & Van Haitsma, K.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Rowan University (US)
  • Miami University (US)
  • The College of Nursing, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park
Venue
The Gerontologist
Published
2016-02-13
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
479-486
ISSN
  • 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5341
OpenAlex
W2338801815
Cited by
72
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
FWCI
13.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Nursing Research
  • The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation (R21NR011334)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Keywords
nursing home residents, perceived choice, satisfaction with care, care preferences, resident preferences, cognitive interviewing, long-term care
MeSH terms
Aged, Choice Behavior, Female, Homes for the Aged, Humans, Male, Nursing Homes, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Participation, Social Perception, United States, Patient Preference, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review