ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Enablers and constraints influencing implementation of a novel, multi-site community-based frailty programme: perspectives of leaders and implementers.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvaluations of integrated care models for frailty anchored by comprehensive geriatric assessment have reported mixed effects on patient outcomes. Various reasons have been proposed, including how implementation varies widely across different contexts. This paper aims to identify the key enablers and constraints that influenced the implementation of a novel community-based frailty programme- the Geriatric Services Hub- in the rapidly ageing nation-state of Singapore through the perspectives of programme leaders and implementers from five sites.
methodsSeventy-four programme leaders and implementers were recruited for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The Framework Method was used to summarise and compare data across different sites and perspectives.
resultsThe findings on enablers and constraints were organised into four domains: System, partnership, programme and patient factors. Systemic factors include differing subsidies across public and private healthcare providers, systemic constraints of primary-care partners, a fragmented system of care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Partnership factors include how capability-building for primary-care and community partners was welcomed by stakeholders. At the programme level, ensuring physical, financing, and timely access to services by frail older adults was prioritised. However, as noted under patient factors, some GSH patients faced complex medical, social, and financial issues that may affect service utilisation.
conclusionsSystemic factors had a major influence on the implementation of GSH and we posit that they hold particular relevance for integrated care models in complex healthcare systems. Whole-system changes above and beyond implementation efforts of individual programmes may be needed for successful and sustainable implementation of integrated care.
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.