Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28753136›Full record

Trial reportJournal of geriatric physical therapy (2001)

Implementation of a Personalized, Cost-Effective Physical Therapy Approach (Coach2Move) for Older Adults: Barriers and Facilitators.

Arjan J W van de Sant, Nienke M de Vries, Thomas J Hoogeboom, Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of geriatric physical therapy (2001). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arjan J W van de SantPhysiotherapy Department, Pantein Healthcare, Boxmeer, the Netherlands.
Nienke M de VriesDepartment of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Thomas J HoogeboomRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Maria W G Nijhuis-van der SandenRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThis article reports on a recent randomized clinical trial that showed a personalized approach to physical therapy (Coach2Move) by a physical therapist specialized in geriatrics (PTG) to be more cost-effective than usual physical therapy care in people with mobility problems (n = 130, mean age = 78 years).

methodsWe used an explanatory mixed-methods sequential design alongside the randomized clinical trial to gain insight into (a) the contrast between the 2 interventions, (b) the fidelity of the Coach2Move delivery; (c) PTGs' experiences of Coach2Move; and (d) possible barriers and facilitators for future implementation. The study included 13 PTGs educated in the strategy and 13 physical therapists with expertise in geriatrics delivering the usual care. In total, 106 medical records were available for assessment: 57 (85%) Coach2Move, 49 (75%) usual care. Quantitative process indicators were used to analyze electronic medical records to determine contrasts in the phases of clinical reasoning. The fidelity of the delivery was tested using indicator scores focusing on 4 key elements of Coach2Move. In-depth interviews with Coach2Move therapists were thematically analyzed to explore experiences and facilitators/barriers related to implementation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Indicator scores showed significant and clinically relevant contrasts in all phases of clinical reasoning, with consistently higher scores among PTGs, except for the treatment plan. Moreover, the fidelity of Coach2Move delivery was more than 70% in all phases, except the evaluation phase (53%). Experiences of Coach2Move were positive. In particular, extended intake allowing motivational interviewing, physical examination and an in-depth problem analysis, and shared goal setting were considered valuable. Facilitators for implementation were the addition of a Coach2Move medical record, frequent coaching by the researcher, and readiness to change in the therapist. Barriers were (1) having to use 2 parallel electronic medical record systems, (2) having to clear the calendar to schedule an intake of 90 minutes, (3) fear of losing income, (4) the sense that patients do not want to change their lifestyle, and (5) not acknowledging that increasing physical activity is an important goal for older adults with mobility problems.

conclusionsPhysical therapy based on the Coach2Move strategy is substantially different from usual care. Future implementation should focus on increasing regular evaluation and feedback, taking into account individuals' contextual factors, and improving organizational facilities while mitigating income loss.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID28753136
PMCPMC6687416
OpenAlexW2740164897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.