Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25608876›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2015

From concept to content: assessing the implementation fidelity of a chronic care model for frail, older people who live at home.

Maaike E Muntinga, Karen M Van Leeuwen, François G Schellevis, Giel Nijpels, Aaltje P D Jansen

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maaike E MuntingaDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. m.muntinga@vumc.nl.
Karen M Van LeeuwenDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. k.vanleeuwen@vumc.nl.
François G SchellevisDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. f.schellevis@vumc.nl.
Giel NijpelsDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. g.nijpels@vumc.nl.
Aaltje P D JansenDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. d.jansen@vumc.nl.
Amsterdam Public Health · NLNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation fidelity, the degree to which a care program is implemented as intended, can influence program impact. Since results of trials that aim to implement comprehensive care programs for frail, older people have been conflicting, assessing implementation fidelity alongside these trials is essential to differentiate between flaws inherent to the program and implementation issues. This study demonstrates how a theory-based assessment of fidelity can increase insight in the implementation process of a complex intervention in primary elderly care.

methodsThe Geriatric Care Model was implemented among 35 primary care practices in the Netherlands. During home visits, practice nurses conducted a comprehensive geriatric assessment and wrote a tailored care plan. Multidisciplinary team consultations were organized with the aim to enhance the coordination between professionals caring for a single patient with complex needs. To assess fidelity, we identified 5 key intervention components and formulated corresponding research questions using Carroll's framework for fidelity. Adherence (coverage, frequency, duration, content) was assessed per intervention component during and at the end of the intervention period. Two moderating factors (participant responsiveness and facilitation strategies) were assessed at the end of the intervention.

resultsAdherence to the geriatric assessments and care plans was high, but decreased over time. Adherence to multidisciplinary consultations was initially poor, but increased over time. We found that individual differences in adherence between practice nurses and primary care physicians were moderate, while differences in participant responsiveness (satisfaction, involvement) were more distinct. Nurses deviated from protocol due to contextual factors and personal work routines.

conclusionsAdherence to the Geriatric Care Model was high for most of the essential intervention components. Study limitations include the limited number of assessed moderating factors. We argue that a longitudinal investigation of adherence per intervention component is essential for a complete understanding of the implementation process, but that such investigations may be complicated by practical and methodological challenges.

trial registrationThe Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR). TRIAL NUMBER: 2160 .

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyAgedChronic DiseaseGeriatric AssessmentHealth Services for the AgedHouse CallsHumansLong-Term CareNetherlandsPatient Care TeamPrimary Health CareReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID25608876
PMCPMC4312437
OpenAlexW2077473252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.