Trial reportBMC health services research2026
Exploring implementation and sustainability of a community paramedicine model to reduce hospitalizations: a pragmatic randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity paramedicine models of care may reduce health system burdens and improve access to care, especially in rural areas. Assessment of intervention implementation from the perspective of implementers and users is critical to refine further implementation, support scale-up, and realize sustainability.
methodsThe parent study was a point-of-care pragmatic randomized trial of a community paramedic (CP) program for patients with intermediate acuity needs (the Care Anywhere with Community Paramedics [CACP] program) versus usual care with the goal of reducing 30-day acute care use. The hybrid effectiveness-implementation design included assessment to explore barriers and facilitators to CACP. Patients in the intervention arm were recruited to complete a survey after the last CP visit, and a sample was invited to an individual interview. All CPs and a sample of clinicians and administrators, purposefully sampled to represent a range of roles and settings with experience using the program, were invited to complete an interview and survey at the end of enrollment, which included questions about program processes, satisfaction with care, and perceptions of CACP sustainability. Surveys were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed using methods of thematic analysis guided by implementation constructs.
resultsBetween January 2022 and February 2023, 240 patients were enrolled in the trial; 91 of 119 patients in the intervention arm completed a survey after their last CP visit and 22 were interviewed. Surveys were completed by 63 staff, and interviews were completed by 20 staff. Clinicians reported being very satisfied with communication with CPs (n = 34, 82.9%) and implementation of care plans (n = 33, 78.6%). Patients also reported high satisfaction, including with CP ability to answer their questions or connect with the right health care provider (n = 35, 59% Strongly Agree). Staff impressions of program sustainability varied, though, and included CP concerns about the complexity of some referred patients and insufficient time to prepare for visits.
conclusionsThe program was successfully implemented in busy clinical settings with high levels of overall satisfaction. While feasible and acceptable, additional staffing, refinement of eligible patient populations, and continued improvements to referral and communication systems may be needed to support program sustainability.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.govNCT05232799. Registered on 10 February 2022.
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.