ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Healthcare professionals' perspectives on implementing the H.O.M.E mobility intervention in acute care: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05484063 (Help Optimise and Mobilise Elders), which is not on this 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.
Help Optimise and Mobilise Elders (H.O.M.E)
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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults often experience reduced mobilisation during hospitalisation, contributing to functional decline and increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Early mobility interventions in acute care settings are therefore critical to preventing functional loss. This study explored healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a multicomponent, mobility-focused intervention - Help, Optimise and Mobilise Elders (H.O.M.E).
methodsThis is a convergent mixed-methods study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sampling of 18 healthcare professionals involved in the intervention. An inductive approach and thematic content analysis were employed. Quantitative surveys were administered to the 25 implementers to measure the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. The data on fidelity, specifically adherence and dosage to the intervention was also collected.
resultsThe quantitative survey shows that the H.O.M.E intervention was generally acceptable, although preferences for specific components differed across professional groups. Feasibility was rated lower than acceptability. Three overarching themes were identified from the qualitative data: (a) additional workload and responsibilities; (b) enhanced professional experience; and (c) challenges arising from patients. Although the intervention improved care workflows by enhancing nurses' understanding of patients' conditions and engagement levels, its implementation feasibility was constrained by patient resistance, competing clinical duties, staffing limitations and variations in intervention exposure.
conclusionThe quantitative and qualitative data were largely convergent, with the exception of nurses' perceptions regarding the feasibility of implementing frequent mobilisation. While the H.O.M.E intervention was recognised as beneficial for patients, its implementation was constrained by operational challenges. Adaptation of workforce could be a viable option to overcome some of these challenges. Additionally, identifying specific patient subgroups most likely to benefit from group therapy could help optimise implementation outcomes.
trial registrationThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05484063).
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.