Effects of a person-centred and thriving-promoting intervention on nursing home residents' experiences of thriving and person-centredness of the environment.

Residents mostly could not self-report, so staff proxies rated their experiences. Staff who delivered the intervention also made the ratings and knew the study aims, which could bias results. Homes were not randomly assigned, and intervention homes had more neuropsychiatric symptoms at baseline. Some surveys were excluded for missing items, and 29 control-home surveys were excluded after a fire. The outcome measures were built from the study's own framework and had not been used before in effect studies. The intervention was a bundle, so the study cannot show which component mattered. The male-female difference came from subgroup analysis and needs confirmation.

The authors declared no conflict of interest. Funding came from the University of Oslo and its Faculty of Medicine.

Do not read this as proof that the intervention works for every nursing home resident. The homes were not randomly assigned, residents did not rate themselves, and the programme bundled several changes, so the study cannot show which component mattered. The larger apparent benefit for men also came from subgroup analysis.