Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30779849›Full record

Trial reportThe Gerontologist2020

Feasibility Trial Evaluation of a Peer Volunteering Active Aging Intervention: ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged).

Afroditi Stathi, Janet Withall, Janice L Thompson, Mark G Davis, Selena Gray, Jolanthe De Koning, Graham Parkhurst, Liz Lloyd, Colin Greaves, Robert Laventure and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Gerontologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clarifying healthy aging: building a common language for policy innovation within the Age-It Research Program.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Afroditi StathiSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
Janet WithallDepartment for Health, University of Bath, UK.
Janice L ThompsonSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
Mark G DavisPhysical Activity Measurement Consultant, Bwlch, Wales, UK.
Selena GrayFaculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Jolanthe De KoningDepartment for Health, University of Bath, UK.
Graham ParkhurstCentre for Transport and Society, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Liz LloydSchool of Policy Studies, University of Bristol, UK.
Colin GreavesSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
Robert LaventureLater Life Training LTD, Perthshire, UK.
Kenneth R FoxSchool of Policy Studies, University of Bristol, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bath · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G1001864Medical Research Council MR/P021220/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundACE (Active, Connected, Engaged) is a theory-informed, pragmatic intervention using peer volunteering support to promote active ageing in socially disengaged, inactive older adults. This study aimed to establish ACE's feasibility and acceptability.

methodsFifty-four older adults were recruited as either peer volunteers (activators; n = 15) or participants (ACEs; n = 39). Participants were randomized to one-to-one support from an activator (ACEs-Intervention [ACEs-I]) or a waiting-list control group (ACEs-Control [ACEs-C]). Activators supported ACEs-I to get out more and engage with local activities. Objectively measured physical activity (PA), lower limb function, and number of out of house activities were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. A mixed-methods process evaluation assessed changes in confidence to get out and about, social support, autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

resultsEighty-two percent of ACEs (mean age = 73.7 years [SD 7.3]) and all activators completed assessments at both baseline and post-intervention (6 months). ACEs-I reported more out of house activities (M [SD] = 6.34 [4.15]). ACEs-I increased physical function post-intervention (M [SD] = 9.8 [2.3]). ACEs-I reported improved well-being and vitality and increased confidence to get out and about, confidence in the face of specific barriers, knowledge of local initiatives, and perceived social support post-intervention. Activators, although sufficiently active at baseline, increased their PA further. ACE was well-accepted and easy to deliver.

conclusionsACE is an acceptable and feasible intervention for helping socially disengaged older people to get out and about more, improve their confidence, and engage more with their community.

Indexed as

Peer GroupVolunteersAgedAged, 80 and overAgingExerciseFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealthy AgingHealthy LifestyleHumansMaleUnited KingdomCommunity engagementInterventionMixed methodsPeer supportPhysical activityPhysical functionProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID30779849
PMCPMC7117619
OpenAlexW2915530655

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.