Lee A Lindquist1, Vanessa Ramirez-Zohfeld2, Priya D Sunkara2, Chris Forcucci3, Dianne S Campbell4, Phyllis Mitzen5, Jody D Ciolino6, Dyanna Gregory7, Gayle Kricke8, Kenzie A Cameron6. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL,USA. Electronic address: LAL425@northwestern.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL,USA. 3. Aging and In-Home Services of Northeast Indiana, Fort Wayne, IN, USA. 4. The Village Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Skyline Village Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL,USA; Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Division of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 8. Center for Healthcare Studies, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few older adults contemplate their home support and health needs that may be required for aging-in-place. We sought to assess the efficacy of PlanYourLifespan.org (PYL), in influencing seniors' planning behaviors, perception of the importance of planning, and confidence accessing services. METHOD: Randomized controlled trial, of adults, age ≥65 years in urban, suburban, rural areas of Texas, Illinois, Indiana. RESULTS: Among 385 participants, mean age was 71.9 years, 79.5% female. Between baseline and one-month follow-up, average planning behavior score increased 0.22 points in the PYL arm when compared to the attention control (AC) arm. After controlling for baseline, mean one-month planning behavior score was significantly higher in the PYL arm than in the AC arm (1.25 points, CI 0.37-2.12, p=0.005). Secondary analyses via longitudinal linear mixed modelling suggested a study arm-by-time interaction effect for both planning behavior (p=0.047 and perception of importance (p=0.05). Significant baseline covariates included self-efficacy, education, perceived social support, power of attorney, and history of stroke. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PlanYourLifespan.org demonstrated efficacy in helping seniors plan for and communicate their health support needs. This free, nationally available tool may help individuals understand, plan, and communicate their options for their future support needs.
OBJECTIVE: Few older adults contemplate their home support and health needs that may be required for aging-in-place. We sought to assess the efficacy of PlanYourLifespan.org (PYL), in influencing seniors' planning behaviors, perception of the importance of planning, and confidence accessing services. METHOD: Randomized controlled trial, of adults, age ≥65 years in urban, suburban, rural areas of Texas, Illinois, Indiana. RESULTS: Among 385 participants, mean age was 71.9 years, 79.5% female. Between baseline and one-month follow-up, average planning behavior score increased 0.22 points in the PYL arm when compared to the attention control (AC) arm. After controlling for baseline, mean one-month planning behavior score was significantly higher in the PYL arm than in the AC arm (1.25 points, CI 0.37-2.12, p=0.005). Secondary analyses via longitudinal linear mixed modelling suggested a study arm-by-time interaction effect for both planning behavior (p=0.047 and perception of importance (p=0.05). Significant baseline covariates included self-efficacy, education, perceived social support, power of attorney, and history of stroke. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PlanYourLifespan.org demonstrated efficacy in helping seniors plan for and communicate their health support needs. This free, nationally available tool may help individuals understand, plan, and communicate their options for their future support needs.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Kala M Mehta; Kristine Yaffe; Kenneth M Langa; Laura Sands; Mary A Whooley; Kenneth E Covinsky Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Laura P Sands; Yun Wang; George P McCabe; Kristofer Jennings; Catherine Eng; Kenneth E Covinsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Paul R Yarnold; Charles L Bennett; Robert C Soltysik; Michael S Wolf; Rosario M Ferreira; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Stacey Costello; Adil Shakir; Caroline Denwood; Fred B Bryant; Terry Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lee A Lindquist; Amber P Miller-Winder; Allison Schierer; Alaine Murawski; Lauren Opsasnick; Laura M Curtis; Kwang-Youn Kim; Vanessa Ramirez-Zohfeld Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Catharina M van Leersum; Albine Moser; Ben van Steenkiste; Judith R L M Wolf; Trudy van der Weijden Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Charlèss Dupont; Tinne Smets; Fanny Monnet; Lara Pivodic; Aline De Vleminck; Chantal Van Audenhove; Lieve Van den Block Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Vanessa E Chicas; Caren Steinway; Jack Chen; Matthew C Schwartz; Charmaine Wright; Michelle Cornacchia; Thomas W Davis; John C Berens; Ilka Riddle; Jason F Woodward; Sophia Jan Journal: J Appl Res Intellect Disabil Date: 2022-03-11