Trial reportProgress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action2022
Beyond
Trial report in Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Council on Aging's Aging Mastery Program (AMP) aims to help older adults implement health behavior and lifestyle changes to promote healthy aging. The purpose of this community-partnered evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of the implementation in Los Angeles, and understand participant outcomes beyond the findings of a randomized waitlist controlled trial.
objectivesThe purpose of this qualitative process evaluation was to deepen our understanding of participant outcomes and potential site-level implementation issues with the randomized waitlist controlled trial, as participant and site lead satisfaction ratings were very high.
methodsAfter the intervention was completed, interviews were conducted with site directors to understand potential challenges or barriers in the implementation of AMP, participant feedback were reviewed for common themes, and focus groups were conducted to elicit additional insight feedback.
resultsAnalysis of interviews with site directors revealed that the study design was characterized by its complexity, but that the overall AMP program was very compatible with the sites' goals and met the needs of the participants. The participants reported greater interest in nutrition and healthy eating, the importance of exercise and 'preparing' for important life decisions, which were not captured through the measures used in the waitlist controlled trial.
conclusionsFuture evaluations of the AMP should continue the use of mixed methods evaluation designs in order to understand both the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of the program, and consider including measures of other constructs, such as socialization, that have been identified by the participants.
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.