ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2022
Lessons from a feasibility study testing an anticipatory care planning intervention for older adults at risk of functional decline: feedback from implementing stakeholders.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03902743 (Anticipatory Care Planning Intervention for Older Adults at Risk of Functional Decline), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Anticipatory Care Planning Intervention for Older Adults at Risk of Functional Decline: A Primary Care Feasibility Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation science in care for older adults across healthcare settings: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring diverse applications of team-based care in preventive medicine: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Application effect of anticipatory care in postoperative infection and complication management in children with acute appendicitis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnticipatory care is becoming increasingly important in effectively managing complex multimorbidity in aging populations, preventing further functional decline, and avoiding hospital admissions. This study aimed to elicit the feedback of participating general practitioners, practice managers, nurses and an adjunct pharmacist on the implementation strengths and limitations of a nurse-led, person-centered anticipatory care planning (ACP) intervention for older people at risk of functional decline in a primary care setting. The findings have implications for a full trial and intervention design.
methodsAs part of a feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) testing the ACP intervention, we sought feedback from implementing stakeholders: general practitioners (N = 3), practice staff (N = 3), research nurses (N = 5), and adjunct pharmacist (N = 1) in both the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI), UK. Following written, informed consent, they were interviewed to investigate their experience of participating in the implementation of the ACP intervention as part of the feasibility trial, and elicit any recommendations for a full trial. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, thematic analysis was employed to analyze data. The intervention consisted of home visits by specially trained nurses who assessed participants' health, discussed with them their health goals and plans, and devised an anticipatory care plan following consultation with participants' General Practitioners and the adjunct clinical pharmacist.
resultsParticipating stakeholders indicated that the strengths of the implementation process included the training provided to the nurses, constructive collaboration of the research team, and structure of implementation process. Perceived limitations included the selection process and screening tool, communication between the research team and the nurses, the assessment questionnaire, and the final document left with the patient, as well as lack of access to medical records for the adjunct pharmacist. Recommendations include better communication and team-wide consensus on alterations to procedure and documents, and standardized protocols for patient selection, data collection, and reporting for research nurses.
conclusionsThe findings have identified strengths of the implementation process on which to build, and recognized limitations which can now be addressed to ensure improved efficiency and effectiveness in future trials.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov , ID: NCT03902743. Registered on 4 April 2019.
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.