ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2020
Process Evaluation of a National Elderly Nutrition-Care Program in Iran: Perspectives of Clients and Providers.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutrition and Aging in Iran: A Critical Analysis of Policy Responses.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAs aging populations increase, many countries have begun implementation of policies to improve elder health and nutrition. This study evaluated key process components of nutrition sections of a national elderly integrated-care program in health-care centers in Iran.
methodsWith stratified three-stage random cluster sampling, a total of 256 elderly subjects (clients) and 76 staff members of health-care centers (providers) participated in the study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using two self-administrated questionnaires to evaluate various components of process evaluation for clients and providers. Program reach was measured by the ratio of the number in the target group who underwent the program to the number of eligible individuals. Exposure rate was measured as clients' awareness of program services. Delivery and fidelity were assessed from providers' reports for each service. Satisfaction rates were assessed for the whole program and for each service of the program. All reasons behind strengths and weaknesses in each of the process-evaluation components were examined and are reported in detail.
resultsThe clients reported low-reach (20.0%) and moderate-exposure rates of 77.5%, with a program target of 90%. Primary training sessions were delivered to the providers as intended (100%), but most planned services for clients, especially vitamin and mineral supplementation, follow-up, and physical activity sessions, were poorly implemented, as they were delivered correctly to 24.7% (n=63, vitamin and mineral supplementation), 24% (n=62, follow-up), and 40.3% (n=103, physical activity sessions) of the clients, with a set program goal of 60%. An overall low level of implementation fidelity was observed, and 39.3% (n=30) of the providers believed that most clients did not benefit from the nutritional services. Overall, less than half (42.8%, n=101) the clients were highly satisfied with the program.
conclusionThe process evaluation showed insufficient reach, exposure, and fidelity of the program, as well as imprecise delivery of some services, which resulted in low levels of client satisfaction. The findings may have implications for further reinforcement of the program, and indicate the importance of continuous monitoring and evaluation of such programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.