Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
Community Visioning for Innovation in Integrated Dementia Care: Stakeholder Focus Group Outcomes
Emily Roberts, Anas Shehadeh. Journal of primary care & community health, 2021
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
It is estimated that 5.4 million Americans have some form of dementia and these numbers are expected to rise in the coming decades, leading to an unprecedented demand for memory care housing and services. In searching for innovative options to create more autonomy and better quality of life in dementia care settings, repurposing existing structures, in particular vacant urban malls, may be 1 option for the large sites needed for the European model of dementia villages. These settings may become sustainable Dementia Friendly City Centers (DFCC), because in the case of enclosed mall construction, the internal infrastructure is in place for lighting, HVAC, with varied spatial configuration of public spaces. This paper describes the community engagement research being conducted by a research team at a Midwestern university, laying groundwork for the DFCC model for centralized dementia programs, services, and attached housing. Using graphics and plans for the DFCC model using an 800 000 ft2 closed mall site, focus groups were conducted with family caregivers of individuals with dementia and long-term care residents to gather their input and response to the model. The participants identified both opportunities and barriers in using an adaptive reuse of a large site for an innovative integrated dementia care model and through the cross-case analysis of the focus group findings, 5 themes were identified which include: community education and acceptance; amenities and activities; maintaining family connections; resident adaptation and staffing.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Roberts, E., & Shehadeh, A. (2021). Community Visioning for Innovation in Integrated Dementia Care: Stakeholder Focus Group Outcomes. Journal of primary care & community health. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501327211042791
Vancouver
Roberts E, Shehadeh A. Community Visioning for Innovation in Integrated Dementia Care: Stakeholder Focus Group Outcomes. Journal of primary care & community health. 2021. doi:10.1177/21501327211042791. PMID: 34583574.
BibTeX
@article{roberts2021-34583574,
author = {Roberts, Emily and Shehadeh, Anas},
title = {{Community Visioning for Innovation in Integrated Dementia Care: Stakeholder Focus Group Outcomes}},
journal = {Journal of primary care \& community health},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1177/21501327211042791},
pmid = {34583574},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/21501327211042791}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In searching for innovative options to create more autonomy and better quality of life in dementia care settings, repurposing existing structures, in particular vacant urban malls, may be 1 option for the large sites needed for the European model of dementia villages.
- These settings may become sustainable Dementia Friendly City Centers (DFCC), because in the case of enclosed mall construction, the internal infrastructure is in place for lighting, HVAC, with varied spatial configuration of public spaces.
- This paper describes the community engagement research being conducted by a research team at a Midwestern university, laying groundwork for the DFCC model for centralized dementia programs, services, and attached housing.
- Using graphics and plans for the DFCC model using an 800 000 ft2 closed mall site, focus groups were conducted with family caregivers of individuals with dementia and long-term care residents to gather their input and response to the model.
- The participants identified both opportunities and barriers in using an adaptive reuse of a large site for an innovative integrated dementia care model and through the cross-case analysis of the focus group findings, 5 themes were identified which include: community education and acceptance; amenities and activities; maintaining family connections; resident adaptation and staffing.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of primary care & community health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34583574) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.