ArticleCJC open2024
Implementation of the Comparison of Outcomes and Access to Care for Heart Failure (COACH) Trial.
Article in CJC open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Codesigning a pharmacist-led transition of care program in the emergency department: a qualitative participatory study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
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
Background: The Comparison of Outcomes and Access to Care for Heart Failure (COACH) trial demonstrated that use of a point-of-care risk assessment tool and a rapid ambulatory transitional heart failure clinic led to significant reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalisation among patients with acute heart failure. We report a process evaluation of COACH intervention and strategy implementation. Methods: We conducted longitudinal interviews with staff to assess barriers and facilitators to COACH implementation. Factors were coded according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Intervention mapping was conducted to identify theory-rooted strategies to address barriers and influence facilitators toward implementation. We used interviews, document reviews, and check-in calls with implementation teams to describe uptake of these strategies and their impact on implementation success over time. Results: A total of 29 interviews were conducted across 10 sites. We identified 10 factors that affected COACH implementation, which corresponded to 6 TDF and 5 CFIR domains. Some barriers were resolved within the study period, but others persisted over time. Seven implementation strategies were recommended to sites. Participants identified ample preparation time, site-specific personnel support, structural and social characteristics conducive to the intervention needs, and implementation experience as factors that facilitated implementation success. Conclusions: We supported implementation of the COACH intervention in 10 acute care hospital sites and describe the factors impacting implementation. We recommend a rapid implementation assessment to sites wishing to implement COACH, and suggest strategies that can be used to mitigate barriers and aid facilitators to improve implementation success.
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.