ArticlePloS one2026
Organizational factors influencing recreational therapy program effectiveness in veterans' nursing homes: A mixed-methods approach.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVeterans' nursing homes face significant challenges in delivering effective recreational therapy (RT) programs due to complex organizational factors and unique veteran care needs. Limited research has systematically examined organizational determinants from leadership perspectives, despite leaders' critical roles in resource allocation and program implementation.
objectiveThis study examined organizational factors influencing recreational therapy program effectiveness in a veterans' nursing home through comprehensive analysis of leadership perspectives using a mixed-methods approach.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to 19 leadership personnel at NYSVETS Home @ Oxford. The 28-question survey assessed RT program effectiveness across five well-being domains, organizational strengths and weaknesses, participation barriers, and leadership involvement patterns. Analysis included descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and systematic thematic coding of 192 qualitative responses.
resultsLeadership rated overall RT program effectiveness highly (78.9%, 95% CI: 60.6-97.3%), with Physical well-being showing the highest impact (3.75 ± 0.62, 95% CI: 3.36-4.14) and no significant differences across domains (χ² = 0.563, p = 0.967, Kendall's W = 0.007). Organizational strengths significantly outweighed weaknesses (U = 24.0, p = 0.010, effect size r = 0.741), with activity variety (89.5%) as the primary asset and resource limitations (52.6%) as the key deficit. Strong positive correlations emerged between engaged veterans and dedicated staff (r = 0.782, 95% CI: [0.508, 0.912]). Leadership demonstrated strong mission-vision alignment (76.5%) but involvement intensity showed no significant association with effectiveness (r = 0.335, 95% CI: [-0.214, 0.723], p = 0.223). A Resource Adequacy Index of 29.7% indicated critical capacity limitations. Qualitative analysis validated quantitative findings, with Social Interaction (40 mentions) and Physical Health (36 mentions) themes supporting effectiveness priorities while revealing veteran-specific challenges including generational preferences for individualized programming.
conclusionsThis study provides comprehensive evidence for organizational factors influencing RT effectiveness, demonstrating both program strengths and critical improvement areas. The organizational priority matrix and resource allocation analysis provide evidence-based tools for strategic planning and quality improvement initiatives, informing policy development and practical guidance for healthcare administrators.
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.