Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42499266›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Evaluating the Co-Design and Implementation of a Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Communication in Aged Care: A Nested Process Evaluation Protocol.

Alicia J King, Sarah J Wallace, Lauren Fothergill, Sally Zingelman, Kyla Hudson, Peter Worthy, Michelle King, Danijela Hliš, Deirdre Fetherstonhaugh, Geoff Argus and 3 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

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

13 authors.

Alicia J KingThe ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9430-9804
Sarah J WallaceQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0600-9343
Lauren FothergillQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2144-7528
Sally ZingelmanQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0599-5708
Kyla HudsonQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0328-3873
Peter WorthyQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9124-1330
Michelle KingQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8131-4965
Danijela HlišConversations About Care Lived Experience Advisory Group, Brisbane, Australia.
Deirdre FetherstonhaughAustralian Centre for Evidence Based Aged Care, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2451-3578
Geoff ArgusSouthern Queensland Rural Health, The University of Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6849-1262
Kirstine ShrubsoleQueensland Aphasia Research Centre, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7805-2447
Amy CoeThe ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3723-7645
Victoria J PalmerThe ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7212-932X

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1175821National Health and Medical Research Council 2015728National Health and Medical Research Council 20322983
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExperience-based co-design (EBCD) seeks to bring together people with lived experience of healthcare with other interest holders to collaboratively generate creative solutions.

objectiveA cluster randomised controlled trial is planned to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a co-designed multicomponent intervention to improve communication in aged care services.

designThis paper describes a nested process evaluation design for the EBCD and implementation of the intervention with the aim of understanding the role of co-design and other factors in achieving impact.

methodPrimary data sources will include surveys, interviews, focus groups, field notes and observations of co-design activities. Secondary sources will include data collected and materials produced by the researchers developing the intervention.

participantsAged care recipients; family members and significant others; direct care workers; managers; and other healthcare professionals will be engaged as co-designers of the intervention, and as research participants in the evaluation of its co-design and implementation. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Evaluation findings will compare experiences of co-design, within and across informant groups, with an explanatory theoretical model of change described in previous research employing EBCD. Additionally, the role of the co-design and other contextual factors in the intervention's impact will be organised using the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework. DISCUSSION: The involvement of people who use and deliver health services in the development of complex interventions is increasingly recommended as a means to improve impact and health outcomes. However, research evidence supporting the mechanisms of impact of co-design and related approaches in healthcare is limited.

conclusionNested process evaluations of co-design are needed to support the continued theoretical and methodological development and resourcing of co-design in healthcare. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A lived experience advisory group (LEAG) of older people receiving aged care services and family or other informal supporters of those receiving aged care services has provided input to the evaluation design described in this manuscript, and a member of this group has co-authored this article. LEAG members will continue to contribute to the conduct of the evaluation as well as the analysis and dissemination of the evaluation findings.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth Services for the AgedAgedFocus GroupsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designaged carecluster randomised controlled trialcommunicationconsumer engagementhealth carehealth services researchimplementationnursingnursing homesprocess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42499266
PMCPMC13401143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.