Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41721262›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2026

Living Lab Dementia: Mixed-methods process evaluation of a feasibility study of an academic-practice partnership in German long-term dementia care.

Felix Bühler, Andrea Leinen, Anja Bieber, Sascha Köpke, Gabriele Meyer, Swantje Seismann-Petersen, Martin N Dichter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Felix Bühler *Institute of Health, Midwifery and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Magdeburger Straße 8, Halle (Saale), 06112, Germany.
Andrea Leinen *Institute of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Gleueler Straße 176-178, Cologne, 50935, Germany. Andrea.Leinen@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5609-8324
Anja BieberInstitute of Health, Midwifery and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Magdeburger Straße 8, Halle (Saale), 06112, Germany.
Sascha KöpkeInstitute of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Gleueler Straße 176-178, Cologne, 50935, Germany.
Gabriele MeyerInstitute of Health, Midwifery and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Magdeburger Straße 8, Halle (Saale), 06112, Germany.
Swantje Seismann-PetersenInstitute of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Gleueler Straße 176-178, Cologne, 50935, Germany.
Martin N DichterInstitute of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Gleueler Straße 176-178, Cologne, 50935, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructured partnerships between academia and nursing practice are likely to promote evidence-based practice and the involvement of healthcare professionals and patients in research. However, systematic evaluations of these partnerships are lacking. Therefore, we adapted the Limburg Living Lab, an academic-practice partnership, and carried out a feasibility study in German long-term dementia care. The three components of the Living Lab Dementia are Linking Pins (dyads of care professionals and researchers), facility-specific teams, and research teams. In this process evaluation, we examined the degree of implementation, the mechanisms of impact, and implementation barriers and facilitators.

methodsThis convergent mixed-methods process evaluation was based on recommendations from the UK Medical Research Council framework and guided by a logic model. Quantitative data were collected via questionnaires and process documents (n = 195) and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were gathered through individual interviews and focus groups with participants of the Living Lab Dementia (n = 32) and analysed using content analysis. Data were integrated by merging and comparing the two data sets.

resultsFacility-specific teams and Linking Pins were implemented in four care facilities. Supported by facility staff, they identified research topics and carried out joint research projects to generate new knowledge on dementia care. People with dementia advised these projects through an external working group. The Linking Pins were involved substantially in all Living Lab activities, but perceived their roles as being demanding, given their numerous responsibilities. Implementation barriers included cultural differences between research and practice, and staff turnover. Facilitators were related to interpersonal relationships and structured exchange formats.

conclusionsThis study concludes that collaboration between care professionals and researchers in a Living Lab is feasible, and joint research projects are an important mechanism for knowledge circulation. The Linking Pins require thorough role preparation to fulfil the numerous requirements and to involve all interest-holders. Facility-specific teams can be a valuable resource for involving care professionals in joint projects. These findings provide a foundation for future implementation efforts. Further research might focus on Living Lab outcomes and explore the role of the research team, as we were unable to investigate this component.

Indexed as

DementiaLong-Term CareAcademiaCooperative BehaviorFeasibility StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleAcademic-practice partnershipCo-creationComplex interventionDementia careLiving labLogic modelLong-term carePatient and public involvementProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID41721262
PMCPMC13032344

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.