Trial reportPloS one2026
Complex intervention programme to improve patient safety and facilitate deprescribing in frail older patients living at home (COFRAIL): A process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFrailty is associated with negative health outcomes in geriatric patients. A large proportion of frail patients is affected by polypharmacy, which in turn may be a possible cause of frailty. The cluster randomised controlled COFRAIL trial investigated the effects of family conferences to improve the care of frail patients. Deprescribing and communication about prioritising health goals between patients, relatives and general practitioners were key components of the intervention. An accompanying process evaluation was conducted to investigate whether the study intervention was implemented as intended and to describe the experiences of the target groups.
methodsThe process evaluation took place between February 2019 and October 2021 and followed international guidelines. Process parameters were collected using study documentation, standardised questionnaires and guided telephone interviews with a convenience sample of patients, relatives and general practitioners. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, qualitative data through content analysis.
resultsAlmost all general practitioners in the intervention group completed both mandatory trainings. Overall, 68% of the patients took part in all three planned family conferences, 85% in at least two. Patients, relatives and general practitioners reported positive experiences with the family conferences. Patients and relatives felt involved in the decision-making process and had predominantly no concerns when medication was discontinued. Only a few general practitioners considered the implementation of family conferences in regular care to be impractical. A supportive pharmacological hotline was not utilised frequently by the general practitioners. Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, some study procedures were adapted but did not have any negative impact.
conclusionsWhile the COFRAIL study did not achieve its primary goals, we identified no major barriers in the implementation of the intervention programme. Overall, the target groups experienced the approach of family conferences positively. However, the process evaluation provides valuable lessons for designing and implementing similar interventions in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.