Sheryl Zimmerman1, Philip D Sloane. 1. University of North Carolina, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, 725 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA. sheryl_zimmerman@unc.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to discuss the benefits and limitations of, and considerations in, developing a typology of assisted living (AL). DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a review and comparison of nine AL typologies drawn from the literature. RESULTS: Typologies addressed matters related to the structure, process, population, and philosophy of AL to varying degrees. A lack of available data and different sampling frames hindered attempts to quantitatively compare the typologies. IMPLICATIONS: Typologies are potentially useful for consumers, practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. It is advisable to identify state-based typologies and then empirically determine types that have national representation. Stakeholders should consider the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity and allow any resulting typology to anticipate ongoing evolution in the field of AL.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to discuss the benefits and limitations of, and considerations in, developing a typology of assisted living (AL). DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a review and comparison of nine AL typologies drawn from the literature. RESULTS: Typologies addressed matters related to the structure, process, population, and philosophy of AL to varying degrees. A lack of available data and different sampling frames hindered attempts to quantitatively compare the typologies. IMPLICATIONS: Typologies are potentially useful for consumers, practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. It is advisable to identify state-based typologies and then empirically determine types that have national representation. Stakeholders should consider the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity and allow any resulting typology to anticipate ongoing evolution in the field of AL.
Authors: Sheryl Zimmerman; Paula Carder; Lindsay Schwartz; Johanna Silbersack; Helena Temkin-Greener; Kali S Thomas; Kimberly Ward; Robert Jenkens; Liz Jensen; Alfred C Johnson; Jed Johnson; Tim Johnston; Loretta Kaes; Paul Katz; Juliet Holt Klinger; Cathy Lieblich; Beth Mace; Kevin O'Neil; Douglas D Pace; Kezia Scales; Robyn I Stone; Sarah Thomas; Paul J Williams; Keren Brown Williams Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Rachel A Kossover; Carolyn J Chi; Matthew E Wise; Alvin H Tran; Neha D Chande; Joseph F Perz Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Anna S Beeber; Sheryl Zimmerman; David Reed; C Madeline Mitchell; Philip D Sloane; Brandy Harris-Wallace; Rosa Perez; John G Schumacher Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 5.562