Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jan 25.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2019 Jul 21;35:1533317519863259. doi: 10.1177/1533317519863259

Table 6.

Correlates of ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative/neutral’ Interactions in Nursing Homes

Variables Positive Interaction Negative/neutral Interaction
Estimate (95% CI) p-value Estimate (95% CI) p-value
Age 1.010 (0.978, 1.043) 0.54 0.993 (0.964, 1.023) 0.66
Gender, female 1.547 (0.618, 3.871) 0.35 0.878 (0.415, 1.856) 0.73
Race, African American 1.173 (0.375, 3.672) 0.78 0.436 (0.183, 1.036) 0.06
Marital status, married 1.410 (0.545, 3.648) 0.48 0.602 (0.271, 1.336) 0.21
Cognitive status, severe impairment 0.699 (0.250, 1.957) 0.50 0.956 (0.408, 2.240) 0.92-
Interaction location, private area 0.137 (0.044 0.431) <0.01* 4.521 (1.862, 10.981) <0.01*
Interaction situation, care related 1.002 (0.373, 2.698) 0.99 1.339 (0.583, 3.076) 0.50
Interpersonal distance, <30 inches 0.340 (0.151, 0.762) <0.01* 1.483 (0.745, 2.952) 0.26
Type of staff/person resident interacting with, nursing 2.093 (0.771, 5.681) 0.15 0.507 (0.217, 1.186) 0.12
Resident participation, active 0.052 (0.022, .123) <.0001* 9.663 (4.555, 20.499) <.0001*

Note. N(residents)=329; Covariates: Age, gender, race, and marital status of which race and marital status were associated with ‘positive’ interaction while only marital status was associated with ‘negative/neutral’ interaction in the bivariate model. While these covariates lost their significance in the multivariate model, the predictors that were significant in bivariate model retained their significance in multivariable model except interaction distance which lost the significance in the multivariate model for ‘negative/neutral’ interactions.