Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41965516›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2026

AUDACE: a study protocol for the realist mixed methods evaluation of the BCM2.0 occupational therapy and assistive device programme for older people aging in place.

Antoine Filipović-Pierucci, Lucia Alvarez Irusta, Tatiana de la Croix, Anne Ledoux, Thérèse Van Durme

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06819982 (Autonome À Domicile Grâce À Un Appareil Connecté Et À Un Suivi Ergo), which is not on this 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.

NCT06819982 narecruitingnot on this map

Autonome À Domicile Grâce À Un Appareil Connecté Et À Un Suivi Ergo

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversité Catholique de LouvainRan2024 to 2025Enrolled3,900ConditionsFrailty, Aging, Home Care ServicesArmsBCM2.0
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

5 authors.

Antoine Filipović-PierucciInstitute of Health and Society, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium. antoine.pierucci@uclouvain.be.
Lucia Alvarez IrustaInstitute of Health and Society, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Tatiana de la CroixInstitute of Health and Society, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne LedouxInstitute of Health and Society, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Thérèse Van DurmeInstitute of Health and Society, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe present the protocol for the AUDACE realist mixed methods evaluation of the BCM2.0 occupational therapy and assistive device programme. The BCM2.0 (“Bien chez moi 2.0”) programme provides occupational therapy sessions and assistive devices to support older people who want to age in place. We designed the AUDACE evaluation to improve understanding of the programme and its effectiveness, and to promote a favourable context for the professional empowerment of occupational therapists as primary care providers.

methodsWe involved home care occupational therapists at every stage of the protocol design to ensure that the tools, training, and organisational structures put in place for the evaluation could also form the basis of their routine practice, harmonising their practices, ethos and processes. We designed a realist mixed methods evaluation to answer the following question: "How, for whom and why do assistive devices, integrated with occupational therapy support, enable older people to remain at home, and under what conditions?" Interrelated components addressed different research sub-questions: (1a) To describe the evaluation population, interventions, and contexts: a descriptive quantitative study using baseline data from all BCM2.0 beneficiaries. (1b) To describe the frailty process in older people receiving the programme: a qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews with a biographical dimension. (2) To explore the enrolment process: focus groups with occupational therapists, following a realist approach. (3) To assess effectiveness: a prospective cohort study with up to 12 months follow-up of all BCM2.0 beneficiaries. (4) To identify barriers and facilitators to implementation: multiple nested case study in five areas, using a realist approach. (5) To build a learning community to clarify ethical considerations: communities of practice meetings. DISCUSSION: The inclusion of occupational therapists in the design and implementation process ensured that the evaluation met their needs. This led to the development of a participatory action research protocol that improved the quality of the evaluation and supported the professional development of occupational therapists.

trial registrationPrimary Registry and Trial Identifying Number: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06819982 Date of Registration in Primary Registry: February 11, 2025.

Indexed as

Aging in PlaceHome Care ServicesOccupational TherapySelf-Help DevicesAgedFemaleHumansMaleOccupational TherapistsProgram EvaluationResearch DesignAgingEducation, ContinuingFrailtyHome Care ServicesMonitoring, AmbulatoryOccupational TherapyPersonal AutonomyPrimary Health Care/methodsProgram EvaluationSelf-Help Devices

Identifiers

PMID41965516
PMCPMC13195930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.