ArticleBMC primary care2025
Developing a progress assessment model for age friendly primary health care initiatives.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Family preparedness for aging in Indonesia: a cross-sectional survey.Korean journal of family medicine · 2026Article
- Correction: Developing a progress assessment model for age friendly primary health care initiatives.BMC primary care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn response to the significant increase in the global aging population, countries have increasingly prioritized Age-Friendly Primary Health Care (AFPHC) to address the unique needs of older adults. This study aims to develop a comprehensive model for assessing the progress of PHC systems in achieving the goals of an elderly-centered services.
methodA qualitative study design was utilized to develop the progress assessment model for AFPHC initiatives. This process involved a literature review (academic databases and manual search), semi-structured interviews, an expert panel discussion, and the Delphi technique for achieving consensus on the final model. Participants in the semi-structured interviews were selected based on specific inclusion criteria, which required professionals and stakeholders to have a minimum of two years of experience in care for older adults and active involvement in PHC. Additionally, older adults with a university education who had accessed PHC services in Iran at least three times were included. The expert panel was composed of multidisciplinary professionals who met similar criteria, ensuring a diverse and informed perspective.
findingsAccording to literature review results, 16 main domains and 28 sub-domains were identified. In the next step, through interviews, 7 main domains and 71 indicators were extracted. After summarizing the results of literature reviews, and interviews, and analyzing the results of the Delphi technique, the initial model with 7 main domains, including policymaking and planning processes related to older adults, principles of respect and interaction with older adults, education for older adults, principles of care and provision of services to older adults, access to PHC facilities, physical environment, specialized facilities and equipment, and human resources, was finalized along with the 60 indicators.
conclusionThe developed model for assessing progress of AFPHC Initiatives offers a comprehensive framework by focusing on key domains and indicators tailored to the needs of older adults. This model serves as a practical tool for assessing the progress of AFPHC, facilitating improvements in the quality and accessibility of PHC services 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.