ArticleInternational journal of older people nursing2026
Predictors of Performing Function Focused Care.
Article in International journal of older people nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSedentary behaviour is highly prevalent among residents, with 84% classified as sedentary. Function Focused Care (FFC) encourages resident participation in activities to reduce inactivity. This study examined factors influencing independent living, assisted living, nursing home and memory care staff's engagement in FFC, hypothesising that staff with lower sedentary behaviours, higher physical activity and FFC knowledge, higher self-efficacy and outcome expectations for FFC, and higher decision authority would increase FFC engagement.
objectiveThis study examined factors influencing independent living, assisted living, nursing home and memory care staff's engagement in FFC, hypothesising that staff with lower sedentary behaviours, higher physical activity and FFC knowledge, higher self-efficacy and outcome expectations for FFC, and higher decision authority would increase FFC engagement.
methodsBaseline data (n = 139) from a randomised controlled trial were analysed in this cross-sectional study. Staff from six facilities provided accelerometer-measured sedentary behaviour data, as well as completed FFC behaviour observations and surveys on self-efficacy, knowledge, decision authority and demographics.
resultsThe sample was predominantly female (88.2%) and African American (67.9%). Staff exhibited an average sedentary time of 11.60 h/day (SD = 2.76). Generalised linear mixed models identified that sedentary behaviour (IRR = 1.25, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with less FFC behaviours. Also, working as a direct care worker (IRR = 0.22, p = 0.002) and older age (IRR = 0.96, p = 0.033) were significantly associated with more FFC behaviours.
conclusionStaff engaged in high levels of sedentary activity. Our data suggest that the risk of not performing FFC with residents increased as workers' sedentary behaviours increased. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings from this study suggest that providing programs and encouraging staff to increase time spent in physical activity may translate to staff helping to provide residents with FFC and thereby increasing the time spent in physical activity. If these findings are reproducible, they could be used when developing staff and resident wellness programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.