ArticlePloS one2026
Using the consolidated framework for implementation research to evaluate a model of community-engaged research in advance care planning.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is the process of discussing one's goals and wishes for end-of-life care with loved ones or clinicians and then completing an advance directive (AD). Our Community-Based Delivery Model (CBDM) has demonstrated success in engaging these communities, yet the implementation mechanisms behind its effectiveness remain unclear. This study utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to evaluate the CBDM in the context of the Project Talk Trial (PTT), a national randomized controlled trial of ACP interventions.
methodsThis study employed a two-pronged approach. First, CFIR was used to systematically map the CBDM, defining domains and constructs relevant to the intervention's implementation in diverse community contexts. Second, semi-structured interviews with 24 community hosts who facilitated PTT events provided qualitative insights into the "inner setting," "outer setting," and "implementation process" domains. Deductive coding and thematic analysis were used to identify key implementation strategies and challenges.
resultsThe CFIR mapping revealed three critical features driving the CBDM's success: the transfer of resources between outer and inner settings, the central role of community hosts in bridging these domains, and the flexibility to adapt to local contexts. Semi-structured interviews identified five themes, including hosts' use of relational connections, teaming and engaging strategies, and culturally tailored approaches, which facilitated implementation. Notably, rural hosts exceeded recruitment goals, challenging the notion that rural populations are "hard to reach".
conclusionsThis approach provides actionable insights for improving ACP efforts in communities settings. The integration of CFIR mapping and empirical data highlights the CBDM's potential as a scalable model for implementing community-engaged health interventions.
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.