Cited by 112Geriatric Care and Nursing HomesAging, Health, and DisabilityAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues

Beyond the Basics: Effects of the Eden Alternative Model on Quality of Life Issues

Bergman-Evans, Brenda·2004·Journal of Gerontological Nursing

Abstract

ABSTRACT In Life Worth Living, Thomas (1996) proposed that in long-term care facilities for elderly individuals, loneliness, helplessness, and boredom are out of control and are steadily decaying the residents' spirits, adversely affecting quality of life. While Thomas' contention appeals to common sense, no empirical evidence is offered in its support. The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to assess the impact of implementation of the Eden Alternative model on levels of loneliness, boredom, and helplessness of older residents of a long-term care facility. The model was introduced into the experimental facility on May 1 , 1998. The final sample for the experimental group included 21 cognitively intact older adults from a state veterans home (13 men, 8 women, mean age = 76.1). The final control group was composed of 13 residents in a private long-term care facility (11 women, 2 men, mean age = 85.7). A Background Data Sheet, the Geriatric Depression Scale (includes yes or no questions related to helplessness and boredom), and the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3) were administered by an interviewer at baseline and 1-year post-implementation of the Eden Alternative model. Data analysis from the post-implementation phase revealed significant differences between the groups on levels of boredom (z = -2.6, p = .01) and helplessness (z = -2.2, ? = .03). Lower levels of distress were found in the experimental group on both boredom and helplessness, but not loneliness. Findings suggest health care professionals and researchers have an opportunity to take a leading role in impacting services related to qualityof life issues for this important, but often overpopulation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3928/0098-9134-20040601-07

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nineteen out of 23 (83%) participatory interventions were observed to have beneficial effects on at least one outcome compared with only four out of nine (44%) non-participatory interventions.

    “Nineteen out of the 23 (83%) participatory interventions were observed to have beneficial effects on at least one outcome [13,52-56,60,63,65-70,73-76,81] compared with only four out of nine (44%) non-participatory interventions [59,71,78,79].”
  • In the service provision study, there appeared to be large between-group differences in outcome scores at baseline, with a higher proportion of the control group being classified as lonely, helpless and bored.

    “Contrary to the authors' claims, there appeared to be large between-group differences in outcome scores at baseline, with a higher proportion of the control group being classified as lonely, helpless and bored.”
  • Participants in the same service provision intervention reported no reduction in loneliness at one-year follow-up.

    “Study participants reported reduced helplessness and boredom, but no reduction in loneliness at the one-year follow-up.”
  • Participants in the alternative nursing home care with daily contact with children, pets and plants reported reduced helplessness and boredom at one-year follow-up.

    “Study participants reported reduced helplessness and boredom, but no reduction in loneliness at the one-year follow-up.”
  • Thirteen out of 15 (87%) interventions categorised as having a theoretical basis reported beneficial effects on at least one outcome domain compared with 10 out of 17 (59%) studies categorised as having no theoretical basis.

    “Thirteen out of 15 (87%) interventions categorised as having a theoretical basis reported beneficial effects on at least one outcome domain [13,53-55,59,65,67-69,73-75,81] compared with 10/17 (59%) studies categorised as having no theoretical basis [52,56,60,63,66,70,71,76,78,79].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bergman-Evans, B.
Affiliations
Creighton University (US)
Corresponding author
Bergman-Evans, Brenda
Venue
Journal of Gerontological Nursing
Publisher
SLACK, Inc.
Published
2004-06
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
27-34
ISSN
  • 0098-9134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-243X
OpenAlex
W1995417162
Cited by
112
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Gerontological Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
long-term care, quality of life, loneliness, boredom, helplessness, older adults, veterans' homes, residential care, Geriatric Depression Scale, UCLA Loneliness Scale
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depression, Female, Geriatric Nursing, Health Facility Environment, Humans, Loneliness, Long-Term Care, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Nursing Methodology Research, Models, Nursing

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