ArticleBMC geriatrics2021
A mixed-methods study evaluating the impact of an excursion-based social group on quality of life of older adults.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of behaviour change techniques in social interventions targeting improved cognitive function in older adults.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Use of the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) in research studies: an international scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Self-assessment of the home environment to plan for successful ageing: Report from a digital health co-design workshop.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
- Changes in healthcare seeking and lifestyle in old aged individuals during COVID-19 lockdown in Germany: the population-based AugUR study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial isolation is an increasing concern for older adults who live in the community. Despite some availability of social support programs to address social isolation, their effectiveness is not routinely measured. This study aimed to evaluate an innovative excursion-based program offering unique social experiences to older adults receiving aged care services.
methodsThis six-month before and after mixed-methods study evaluated the outcomes of an Australian excursion-based program which offered social and physical outings to bring older adults receiving aged care services into the wider community. The study combined two parts: Part 1 was a pre-post survey assessing the quality of life of older adults who received the excursion-based program for 6 months (n = 56; two time-points, analysed using signed rank test) and Part 2 involved qualitative in-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 24 aged care staff, older adults and carers; analysed using thematic analysis).
resultsOlder adults experienced a significant increase in quality of life scores (p < 0.001) between baseline and 6 months. Interviews confirmed these observations and suggested that benefits of participation included increased opportunities for social participation, psychological wellbeing, physical function, and carer respite. Interviews also revealed being in a group setting, having tailored, convenient and accessible activities, alongside supportive staff were key drivers in improving the wellbeing of participants.
conclusionsParticipating in an excursion-based community program may improve wellbeing in older adults. Aging policy should focus on prioritizing initiatives that promote social connectivity with the wider community and assist in improving outcomes for older adults.
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.