Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40415281›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Protocol for the Process Evaluation of the SENSE-Cog Sensory Support Intervention Field Trial to Improve Quality of Life for Older People Receiving Home Care in Australia.

Helen Gurteen, Melinda Toomey, Bronwyn Franco, Rebecca Bennett, Dayna R Cenin, Najwan El-Saifi, Melanie Ferguson, Yuanyuan Gu, Chyrisse Heine, Lisa Keay and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

23 authors.

Helen GurteenCentre for Hearing Research, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0009-0000-2924-2802
Melinda ToomeyCentre for Hearing Research, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9552-4768
Bronwyn FrancoCentre for Hearing Research, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-6513-451X
Rebecca BennettNational Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9427-5539
Dayna R CeninSchool of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2598-7035
Najwan El-SaifiCentre for Hearing Research, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4651-0810
Melanie FergusonSchool of Allied Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8096-869X
Yuanyuan GuMacquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School & Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3816-9106
Chyrisse HeineInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2213-1795
Lisa KeaySchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2215-0678
Sheela KumaranSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6913-4865
Sabrina LenzenCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9924-5478
Iracema LeroiGlobal Brain Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-1822-3643
Judy A LowthianBolton Clarke Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9780-5256
Carly J MeyerBolton Clarke Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2268-3055
Leander K MitchellSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3595-2100
John NewallDepartment of Linguistics, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, The Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7159-9677
Nancy A PachanaSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8927-4205
Marianne PianoDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Smriti RaichandMacquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School & Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3419-5179
Emma ScanlanHearing Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Hamid R SohrabiCentre for Healthy Ageing, Health Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8017-8682
Piers DawesCentre for Hearing Research, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3180-9884

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the NHMRC 2022 MRFF Dementia Ageing and Aged Care Mission Grant for funding this study. The funder had no role in the design or reporting of this protocol.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA field trial of a home-delivered hearing and vision support intervention will assess its impact on the quality of life and well-being of home care recipients with hearing and/or vision impairment and their care partners.

aimsThis paper outlines the protocol for a process evaluation of the field trial. The process evaluation aims to identify discrepancies between expected and actual outcomes, understand contextual influences, assess implementation fidelity and evaluate the feasibility, appropriateness and acceptability of the intervention.

methodsData will be collected from 87 home care recipients with hearing/vision impairment, their care partner and the sensory therapist who will deliver the intervention at multiple points during the 3-month intervention. Likert-scale ratings for feasibility, appropriateness and acceptability will be gathered. Proxy measures of fidelity, such as intervention session completion rates, will be obtained to ascertain whether the intervention was delivered as designed. Post-intervention, 20% of participants will complete semi-structured interviews to explore contextual and causal factors. Data analysis will include descriptive statistics, regression analysis and thematic qualitative analysis. DISCUSSION: The process evaluation will elicit the perspectives of home care recipients and their care partners regarding the intervention experience. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Older adults with lived experience with dementia and hearing and/or vision will contribute to the proposed research by shaping the interview topic guide to ensure its appropriateness and relevance for the target population. Their insights will result in a more rigorous study and improve the likelihood of the final intervention meeting real-world needs.

Indexed as

Hearing LossHome Care ServicesQuality of LifeVision DisordersAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleProcess Assessment, Health Caredementiahearinghome careolder adultsprocess evaluationvision

Identifiers

PMID40415281
PMCPMC12104192

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.