Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39469864›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Community Preferences for Allied Health Services in Residential Aged Care.

Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Magdalena Z Raban, Karla Seaman, Kathleen Rolfe, Crisostomo Mercardo, Kristiana Ludlow, Nasir Wabe, Johanna Westbrook

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Isabelle MeulenbroeksAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9083-7845
Magdalena Z RabanAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Karla SeamanAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Kathleen RolfeAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Crisostomo MercardoAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Kristiana LudlowCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Nasir WabeAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Johanna WestbrookAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

This work was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Postgraduate Scholarship (APP2013953) and a Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship awarded to I.M. and was further supported by an NHMRC Partnership Grant with Anglicare (APP1170898) awarded to J.W. M.R. is supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (APP1143941).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExploring health consumer preferences in care is an essential foundational, and ongoing activity, when designing and delivering models of care. We undertook a study to explore: (i) what allied health (AH) services are most important to health consumers and (ii) how health consumers expect to access these services in residential aged care (RAC) to determine consumer priorities in future AH models of care in RAC.

methodsA mixed method study was conducted with aged care residents and community members (friends or family of residents/people who believe they may use RAC services). The study comprised two focus-group activities where participants were asked to (1) rank the AH services most important to them and then (2) categorise how they would prefer to access each AH service. Focus group members used card sort methods (Q-methodology) to aid prioritisation, categorisation and discussion. Card sorting data were analysed using inverted factor analysis and descriptive statistics. Qualitative focus group data were deductively coded using a coding structure created by the research team informed by quantitative results.

resultsData were collected from 16 participants who formed five focus groups in a community forum. The analysis revealed three factors, that represented shared meaning amongst groups of participants (viewpoints) regarding prioritisation of AH services: 'Prioritising urgent needs', 'Prioritising long-term healthy habits and lifestyle', and 'Prioritising social well-being'. Data from the card sort activity, which related to 'how health consumers expect to access AH services', were also categorised into three categories: 'It is always provided', 'A professional will assess my need' and 'I or my family will ask for this service if I need it'. Participants wanted most AH services to be provided regularly, with some such as 'Exercise and rehabilitation' and 'Meaningful activity' to be provided up to one hour every day.

conclusionConsumers value a range of AH services and have an expectation that these will be provided in RAC on a regular basis. To ensure consumers make informed preferences regarding the future of services in RAC, health systems need to trial innovative AH models of care and embed consumer evaluation.

Indexed as

Focus GroupsAgedAged, 80 and overConsumer BehaviorFemaleHomes for the AgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Preferenceallied health occupationscommunity‐based participatory researchconsumer participationhomes for the agednursing homesrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39469864
PMCPMC11519699

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.