| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence: Address correspondence to Sheryl Zimmerman, PhD, University of North Carolina, Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, 725 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. E-mail: sheryl_zimmerman{at}unc.edu
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.
Key Words: Typology • Subtypes • Residential Care • Senior Housing
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
