ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Current status and progress of validation studies on the ICOPE scale: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rapid global population aging, systematically and early identifying and managing functional decline in older adults has become a core challenge in public health. The Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) framework and its screening tool, proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), aim to prevent disability by assessing intrinsic capacity. However, there is a lack of systematic review of the implementation strategies, effects, and challenges of this tool in different global contexts. This study aimed to review the global implementation evidence of the ICOPE screening tool, analyze its integration paths and influencing factors, and provide a basis for constructing an integrated care model suitable for different resource environments. Methods: This study systematically retrieved and included literatures meeting the criteria, and comprehensively sorted and conducted comparative analyses of the design, population, positive screening rate, tool performance indicators (such as sensitivity and specificity), and implementation challenges of the included studies. Results: The study demonstrated significant heterogeneity in the global application of the ICOPE screening tool. The positive screening rates vary greatly due to differences in research design, target populations, and assessment criteria. The psychometric properties of the tool differ across various cultural backgrounds, and the implementation process faces common challenges such as disconnection between screening and intervention, uneven accessibility of digital tools, lack of evidence for long-term effects, and absence of unified diagnostic criteria. Conclusion: The ICOPE framework shows preliminary feasibility and global acceptance, but the performance of the screening tools needs to be interpreted in the context of specific cultures and populations. Future research should focus on unifying core measurement indicators, conducting long-term validity verification, and establishing a standardized implementation path integrating screening, assessment, and intervention to promote effective implementation of this strategy globally, especially in resource-limited areas.
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.