Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38254164›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Bathing Adaptations in the Homes of Older Adults (BATH-OUT-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic evaluation and process evaluation.

Phillip J Whitehead, Stuart Belshaw, Samantha Brady, Elizabeth Coleman, Alexandra Dean, Laura Doherty, Caroline Fairhurst, Sandra Francis-Farrell, Miriam Golding-Day, Joanne Gray and 14 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

24 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Phillip J WhiteheadPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. phillip.whitehead@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1310-4020
Stuart BelshawCentre for Rehabilitation and Ageing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Samantha BradyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Elizabeth ColemanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Alexandra DeanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Laura DohertyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Caroline FairhurstDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Sandra Francis-FarrellNottingham City Council, Nottingham, UK.
Miriam Golding-DayCentre for Rehabilitation and Ageing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Joanne GrayDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Maisie MartlandDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Jennifer McAnuffDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Andrew McCarthyDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Peter McMeekinDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Natasha MitchellDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Melanie NarayanasamyCentre for Rehabilitation and Ageing Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Craig NewmanPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Adwoa ParkerDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Tim RapleyDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Sara RodgersDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Leigh RooneyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Rachel RussellFoundations, Glossop, UK.
Laura SheardDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
David TorgersonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
University of York · GBNorthumbria University · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBGlossop Heritage Trust · GBNottingham City Council · GB

Funding

School for Social Care Research 102645/T19-034/UN-P151
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe onset of disability in bathing is particularly important for older adults as it can be rapidly followed by disability in other daily activities; this may represent a judicious time point for intervention in order to improve health, well-being and associated quality of life. An important environmental and preventative intervention is housing adaptation, but there are often lengthy waiting times for statutory provision. In this randomised controlled trial (RCT), we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bathing adaptations compared to no adaptations and to explore the factors associated with routine and expedited implementation of bathing adaptations.

methodsBATH-OUT-2 is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group RCT. Adults aged 60 and over who are referred to their local authority for an accessible level access shower will be randomised, using pairwise randomisation, 1:1, to receive either an expedited provision of an accessible shower via the local authority or a usual care control waiting list. Participants will be followed up for a maximum of 12 months and will receive up to four follow-ups in this duration. The primary outcome will be the participant's physical well-being, assessed by the Physical Component Summary score of the Short Form-36 (SF-36), 4 weeks after the intervention group receives the accessible shower. The secondary outcomes include the Mental Component Summary score of the SF-36, self-reported falls, health and social care resource use, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), social care-related quality of life (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)), fear of falling (Short Falls Efficacy Scale), independence in bathing (Barthel Index bathing question), independence in daily activities (Barthel Index) and perceived difficulty in bathing (0-100 scale). A mixed-methods process evaluation will comprise interviews with stakeholders and a survey of local authorities with social care responsibilities in England. DISCUSSION: The BATH-OUT-2 trial is designed so that the findings will inform future decisions regarding the provision of bathing adaptations for older adults. This trial has the potential to highlight, and then reduce, health inequalities associated with waiting times for bathing adaptations and to influence policies for older adults.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN48563324. Prospectively registered on 09/04/2021.

Indexed as

FearGroup ProcessesAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandHumansMiddle AgedPolicyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBathing adaptationsLocal authoritiesOccupational therapyOlder adultsRandomised controlled trialSocial care research

Identifiers

PMID38254164
PMCPMC10802044
OpenAlexW4391088670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.