Mauro Hernandez1, Robert Newcomer. 1. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 455, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. mauro.hernandez@ucsf.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to review existing knowledge about assisted living (AL) use by traditionally underserved populations, including people of color, low-income people, and those living in rural communities. DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed methodologies and findings of research on AL and residential care up to June 2004. RESULTS: Some studies suggested that low-income people and people of color either are less likely to utilize AL or receive AL in settings with less space and amenities and/or lower scores in selected quality measures. Generalizations from national or multistate studies to the population have methodological limitations. Numerous topics remain unstudied, including the pricing of AL, the experience of choosing an AL facility, the presence of discriminatory admission and retention practices, and the role of resident preferences. Data on access to AL in rural areas are inconclusive. IMPLICATIONS: We offer recommendations for national surveys to better classify supportive housing settings. Furthermore, we suggest quantitative and qualitative studies to illuminate the experience of low-income, racial/ethnic minority, and rural populations in AL settings.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to review existing knowledge about assisted living (AL) use by traditionally underserved populations, including people of color, low-income people, and those living in rural communities. DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed methodologies and findings of research on AL and residential care up to June 2004. RESULTS: Some studies suggested that low-income people and people of color either are less likely to utilize AL or receive AL in settings with less space and amenities and/or lower scores in selected quality measures. Generalizations from national or multistate studies to the population have methodological limitations. Numerous topics remain unstudied, including the pricing of AL, the experience of choosing an AL facility, the presence of discriminatory admission and retention practices, and the role of resident preferences. Data on access to AL in rural areas are inconclusive. IMPLICATIONS: We offer recommendations for national surveys to better classify supportive housing settings. Furthermore, we suggest quantitative and qualitative studies to illuminate the experience of low-income, racial/ethnic minority, and rural populations in AL settings.
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
Authors: Tetyana Pylypiv Shippee; Chanee D Fabius; Shekinah Fashaw-Walters; John R Bowblis; Manka Nkimbeng; Taylor I Bucy; Yinfei Duan; Weiwen Ng; Odichinma Akosionu; Jasmine L Travers Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.669