Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40531926›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

A study protocol for a pragmatic pre-post trial to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of a novel co-designed service to support health and wellbeing of older carers of older people.

Aislinn Lalor, Susan Slatyer, Elissa Burton, Christina Bryant, Déborah Oliveira, Anjali Khushu, Natasha Brusco, Natasha Layton, Den-Ching Angel Lee, Belinda Cash and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

13 authors.

Aislinn LalorRehabilitation Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9772-5272
Susan SlatyerSchool of Nursing, College of Science, Health Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Elissa BurtonSchool of Allied Health and enAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Christina BryantMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Déborah OliveiraFaculty of Nursing, Universidad Andrés Bello, Campus Viña del Mar, Vina del Mar, Chile.
Anjali KhushuDepartment of Geriatrics, Frankston Hospital, The Mornington Centre, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Natasha BruscoRehabilitation Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Natasha LaytonRehabilitation Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3213-8069
Den-Ching Angel LeeRehabilitation Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2693-8606
Belinda CashSchool of Social Work and Arts, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia.
Jacqueline AllenNational Centre for Healthy Ageing, Monash University and Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lisa LicciardiRehabilitation Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7707-5762
Keith D HillRehabilitation Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2191-0308

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Older carers (≥50 years) of older people (≥65 years) are an important sub-group of carers performing valuable roles in providing informal care but often do not have the time or give priority to supporting their own health and wellbeing. Current services supporting older carers' health and wellbeing are fragmented and inadequate. Through previous research and co-design activity by our team, an innovative multidisciplinary Carer Health and Wellbeing Service (CHWS) has been developed. The purpose of this protocol paper is to describe the rationale for the CHWS and the methods proposed to evaluate its effectiveness and implementation outcomes. The CHWS commenced in March 2024 at Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Australia. Older carers of older people can be referred from multiple sources, including self-referral. A pre-post mixed methods study design is being utilised. Initial assessments include the Carer Support Assessment Needs Tool (CSNAT) and carer prioritisation of their needs, which guides further assessment and interventions. Assessments will occur at Service intake and 6 months later. The primary effectiveness outcome is the Preparedness for Caregiving Scale, and primary implementation outcomes are reach and adoption. Interviews of carers, referrers and staff, and a cost-utility analysis will be undertaken. The target sample size is 137 carers undertaking assessment and intervention over the 15 months data collection. Generalised linear regression will be used to compare pre- and post-continuous outcome measures. Qualitative data will be thematically analysed. Results will inform future scaling up of this innovative approach to optimising health and wellbeing of older carers of older people. Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN: 12625000245493.

Indexed as

CaregiversAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40531926
PMCPMC12176210

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.