Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33457318›Full record

ArticleTranslational medicine @ UniSa2020

Assessing the Impact of A Community-Based Pro-Active Monitoring Program Addressing the need for Care of Community-Dwelling Citizens aged more than 80: Protocol for a Prospective Pragmatic Trial and Results of the Baseline Assessment.

G Liotta, O Madaro, P Scarcella, M C Inzerilli, B Frattini, F Riccardi, N Accarino, S Mancinelli, E Terracciano, S Orlando and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Translational medicine @ UniSa, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04785664 (Assessing the Impact of Community-based Pro-Active Monitoring Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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.

NCT04785664 naunknown statusnot on this map

Assessing the Impact of Community-based Pro-Active Monitoring Program (CAMP) on Community-dwelling Citizens Aged More Than 80

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Rome Tor VergataRan2018 to 2021Enrolled1,185ConditionsSocial Isolation, FrailtyArmsCommunity-based pro-Active Monitoring Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

G LiottaDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00173, Rome, Italy.
O MadaroCommunity of Sant'Egidio, "Long Live the Elderly!" program, Via San Gallicano 25, 00153, Rome, Italy.
P ScarcellaDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00173, Rome, Italy.
M C InzerilliCommunity of Sant'Egidio, "Long Live the Elderly!" program, Via San Gallicano 25, 00153, Rome, Italy.
B FrattiniCommunity of Sant'Egidio, "Long Live the Elderly!" program, Via San Gallicano 25, 00153, Rome, Italy.
F RiccardiDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00173, Rome, Italy.
N AccarinoCommunity of Sant'Egidio, "Long Live the Elderly!" program, Via San Gallicano 25, 00153, Rome, Italy.
S MancinelliDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00173, Rome, Italy.
E TerraccianoDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00173, Rome, Italy.
S OrlandoDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00173, Rome, Italy.
M C MarazziLUMSA University, Via della Traspontina 21, 00193, Rome, Italy.
University of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol of a study assessing the impact of a Community-based pro-Active Monitoring Program, by measuring the effect in counteracting the adverse outcomes related to frailty.

methodsa prospective pragmatic trial will be carried out to describe the impact of an intervention on people aged>80, adjusted for relevant parameters: demographic variables, comorbidities, disability and bio-psycho-social frailty. They have been assessed with the Functional Geriatric Evaluation questionnaire that is a validated tool. Mortality, Acute Hospital Admission rates, Emergency Room Visit rates and Institutionalization rates are the main outcomes to be evaluated annually, over three years. Two groups of patients, made up by 578 cases (undergoing the intervention under study) and 607 controls have been enrolled and interviewed.

resultsat baseline the two groups are quite similar for age, living arrangement, comorbidity, disability and cognitive status. They differ in education, economic resources and physical status (that are better in the control group) and in social resources (that is better in the case group). The latter was expected since the intervention is focused on increasing social capital at individual and community level and aimed at improving survival among the cases as well as reducing the recourse to hospital and residential Long Term Care.

conclusionThe proposed study addresses a crucial issue: assessing the impact of a

Indexed as

bio-psycho-social frailtyFunctional Geriatric Evaluationhospital admission ratemortalitysocial isolation

Identifiers

PMID33457318
PMCPMC8370536
OpenAlexW3094305824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.