The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Value of Resident Choice During Daily Care: Do Staff and Families Differ?
Open accessAbstract
Allowing long-term care (LTC) residents to make choices about their daily life activities is a central tenet of resident-centered care. This study examined whether staff and family rated care episodes involving choice differently from care episodes not involving choice. Seventeen nurse aide and 15 family participants were shown paired video vignettes of care interactions. Participants were asked to rate their preferred care vignette using a standardized forced-choice questionnaire. Focus groups were held separately for staff and family members following this rating task to determine reasons for their preferences. Both staff and family rated the vignettes depicting choice as “strongly” preferred to the vignettes without choice. Reasons provided for the preference ratings during the focus group discussions related to resident well-being, sense of control, and respondents’ own personal values. These findings have implications for LTC staff training related to resident-centered care to promote choice.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Does Choice Mean Freedom and Well-Being?
Markus, H. R., & Schwartz, B. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651242 · Cited by 381 · cited 3×
“However, we also expected family ratings would reflect stronger preferences for choice relative to staff due to potential concerns about time and other work environment constraints as well as the potential for bias due to race or socioeconomic status (Markus & Schwartz, 2010).”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05035.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01686.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.beth.2010.07.001 · DOI
- 10.1093/geront/gnr080 · DOI
- 10.1111/jocn.1996.5.5.325 · DOI
- 10.1097/00001786-200610000-00006 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb05971.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03844.x · DOI
- 10.1177/0032329205284756 · DOI
- 10.4135/9781483349008 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0026447 · DOI
- 10.1177/160940690900800301 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/geront/gnp050 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00225.x · DOI
- 10.1093/geront/gns065 · DOI
- 10.1093/GNR066 · DOI
- 10.1177/1533317507305593 · DOI
- Strauss A., 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Metadata
- Authors
- Simmons, S. F., Durkin, D. W., Rahman, A. N., Schnelle, J. F., & Beuscher, L. M.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Gerontology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-08-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 655-671
- ISSN
- 0733-4648 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4523
- PMC
- PMC4142524
- OpenAlex
- W2122743675
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Gerontology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG032446, T32AG000037)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Patient Dignity and Privacy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Keywords
- long-term care, resident-centered care, nursing assistants, family perspectives, employee preferences, perceived control, resident well-being, employee training, personal values
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Choice Behavior, Consumer Behavior, Family, Female, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Middle Aged, Nursing Assistants, Nursing Homes, Surveys and Questionnaires
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
