Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2023 Jun;24(6):841-845.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.02.007. Epub 2023 Mar 16.
Online reviews provided by users of assisted living communities may offer a unique source of heretofore unexamined data. We explored online reviews as a possible source of information about these communities and examined the association between the reviews and aspects of state regulations, while controlling for assisted living, county, and state market-level factors.
Cross-sectional, observational study.
Sample included 149,265 reviews for 8828 communities.
Primary (eg, state regulations) and secondary (eg, Medicare Beneficiary Summary Files) data were used. County-level factors were derived from the Area Health Resource Files, and state-level factors from the integrated Public Use Microdata series. Information on state regulations was obtained from a previously compiled regulatory dataset. Average assisted living rating score, calculated as the mean of posted online reviews, was the outcome of interest, with a higher score indicating a more positive review. We used word cloud to visualize how often words appeared in 1-star and 5-star reviews. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between online rating and a set of community, county, and state variables. Models were weighted by the number of reviews per assisted living bed.
Overall, 76% of communities had online reviews. We found lower odds of positive reviews in communities with greater proportions of Medicare/Medicaid residents [odds ratio (OR) = 0.986; P < .001], whereas communities located in micropolitan areas (compared with urban), and those in states with more direct care worker hours (per week per bed) had greater odds of high rating (OR = 1.722; P < .001 and OR = 1.018, P < .05, respectively).
Online reviews are increasingly common, including in long-term care. These reviews are a promising source of information about important aspects of satisfaction, particularly in care settings that lack a public reporting infrastructure. We found several significant associations between online ratings and community-level factors, suggesting these reviews may be a valuable source of information to consumers and policy makers.
用户对辅助生活社区的在线评论可能提供了一个迄今为止尚未被检查的数据来源。我们探索了在线评论作为这些社区信息的一个可能来源,并在控制辅助生活、县和州市场水平因素的情况下,检查了评论与州法规之间的关联。
横断面观察性研究。
样本包括 8828 个社区的 149265 条评论。
主要(如州法规)和次要(如医疗保险受益摘要文件)数据被使用。县一级的因素来源于区域卫生资源档案,州一级的因素来源于综合公共使用微数据系列。关于州法规的信息是从之前编制的监管数据集中获得的。平均辅助生活评级评分是感兴趣的结果,其计算方法是发布的在线评论的平均值,评分越高表示评论越积极。我们使用词云来可视化 1 星和 5 星评论中出现的频率。使用逻辑回归模型来确定在线评级与一组社区、县和州变量之间的关联。模型按每个辅助生活床位的评论数量进行加权。
总体而言,76%的社区有在线评论。我们发现,在 Medicare/Medicaid 居民比例较高的社区中,正面评论的可能性较低[优势比(OR)=0.986;P<0.001],而位于大都市地区(与城市相比)的社区,以及那些直接护理人员每周每床工作时间较多的州(OR=1.722;P<0.001 和 OR=1.018,P<0.05)的社区,有更高的高评级可能性。
在线评论越来越普遍,包括在长期护理中。这些评论是关于满意度的重要方面的信息的一个有希望的来源,特别是在缺乏公共报告基础设施的护理环境中。我们发现在线评分与社区水平因素之间存在一些显著关联,这表明这些评论可能是消费者和政策制定者的宝贵信息来源。