Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30947737›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Improving primary care Access in Context and Theory (I-ACT trial): a theory-informed randomised cluster feasibility trial using a realist perspective.

John A Ford, Andy P Jones, Geoff Wong, Garry Barton, Allan Clark, Erika Sims, Ann Marie Swart, Nick Steel

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Mobility services in primary care: An overview of existing types of services and potentials for the German healthcare system].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

8 authors.

John A FordDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Chancellors Drive, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. jf653@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8033-7081
Andy P JonesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Chancellors Drive, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Garry BartonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Chancellors Drive, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Allan ClarkDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Chancellors Drive, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Erika SimsNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Ann Marie SwartNorwich Clinical Trials Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Nick SteelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Chancellors Drive, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2014-07-083Research Trainees Coordinating Centre DRF-2014-07-083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care access can be challenging for older, rural, socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Here we report the I-ACT cluster feasibility trial which aims to assess the feasibility of trial design and context-sensitive intervention to improve primary care access for this group and so expand existing theory.

methodsFour general practices were recruited; three randomised to intervention and one to usual care. Intervention practices received £1500, a support manual and four meetings to develop local, innovative solutions to improve the booking system and transport. Patients aged over 64 years old and without household car access were recruited to complete questionnaires when booking an appointment or attending the surgery. Outcome measures at 6 months included: self-reported ease of booking an appointment and transport; health care use; patient activation; capability; and quality of life. A process evaluation involved observations and interviews with staff and participants.

resultsThirty-four patients were recruited (26 female, eight male, mean age 81.6 years for the intervention group and 79.4 for usual care) of 1143 invited (3% response rate). Most were ineligible because of car access. Twenty-nine participants belonged to intervention practices and five to usual care. Practice-level data was available for all participants, but participant self-reported data was unavailable for three. Fifty-six appointment questionnaires were received based on 150 appointments (37.3%). Practices successfully designed and implemented the following context-sensitive interventions: Practice A: a stacked telephone system and promoting community transport; Practice B: signposting to community transport, appointment flexibility, mobility scooter charging point and promoting the role of receptionists; and Practice C: local taxi firm partnership and training receptionists. Practices found the process acceptable because it gave freedom, time and resource to be innovative or provided an opportunity to implement existing ideas. Data collection methods were acceptable to participants, but some found it difficult remembering to complete booking and appointment questionnaires. Expanded theory highlighted important mechanisms, such as reassurance, confidence, trust and flexibility.

conclusionsRecruiting older participants without access to a car proved challenging. Retention of participants and practices was good but only about a third of appointment questionnaires were returned. This study design may facilitate a shift from one-size-fits-all interventions to more context-sensitive interventions.

trial registrationISRCTN18321951 , Registered on 6 March 2017.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesModels, OrganizationalAgedAged, 80 and overCluster AnalysisEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services for the AgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareAccess to health careAgingFeasibility studiesHealth services for the agedPrimary careRandomised controlled trialsRural health servicesVulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID30947737
PMCPMC6449944

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.