Source, year | Design/method of data collection | Primary aim | Setting, country | Included participants: n (intervention group (IG)/ control group (CG)) | Age in years: mean (range) | Groups in the intervention, provider | Results of the main project reports | Source of the barrier and facilitator data extraction |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Azad et al., 2008 [30] | RCT | Effectiveness of the intervention | Primary care, Canada | Female patients with heart failure and their family caregivers 91 (45/46) | IG: 74.2 CG: 75.7 Caregivers: n.a. | IG: multi-disciplinary care pathway for heart failure - 12 visits - assessment and evidence-based   treatment by various disciplines - group sessions/workshops: heart   failure management and education CG: usual care Provider: medicine, pharmacy, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, social work | No significant difference in primary outcome |  |
Byszewski et al., 2010 [31] | with an additional publication focusing the intervention arm | Variance, adherence |  | All patients from the IG (n = 45) | IG: 74.2 |  |  | Barrier and facilitator typology derived from data |
Bleijenberg et al., 2016a [32] | cRCT | Effectiveness of the intervention | Primary care, Netherlands | Community-dwelling elderly people 3092 (790IGa/ 1446IGb/856CG) | IGa: 73.5 IGb: 74.0 CG: 74.6 | IGa: frailty screening followed by routine care from a general practitioner IGb: Proactive Primary Care Program on Preserving Daily Functioning of Older People: frailty assessment followed by personalized nurse-led care - geriatric assessment - tailored care planning - care coordination - follow-up - educational training for providers CG: usual care Provider: practice nurses, general practitioners | Significant differences in primary outcome in both IGs | Â |
Bleijenberg et al., 2013b [33] | with a nested mixed-methods study: - quantitative: pre-and post-   questionnaires - qualitative: focus groups with health professionals | Barriers, needs, expectations |  | 32 general practitioners 21 practice nurses | General practitioners: 55.0 Practice nurses: 46.5 |  |  | Barrier and facilitator themes Respondents’ agreement with pre-defined barrier statements |
Bleijenberg et al., 2015 [34] | with a nested qualitative study: interviews with patients | Perceptions, experiences | Â | 11 patients from IGb (subsample) | 79 | Â | Â | Barrier and facilitator themes |
Bleijenberg et al., 2016b [35] | with a nested mixed-methods study: - quantitative:   descriptive data - qualitative: focus   group with nurses | Intervention delivery |  | 835 patients (identified as frail) from IGb Subsample of practice nurses from IGb (n = n.a.) | Patients: 75.4 Practice nurses: n.a. |  |  | Barrier and facilitator themes |
Harris et al., 2015 [36] | cRCT | Effectiveness of the intervention | Primary care, UK | Community-dwelling aged people 298 (150/148) | (60–75) | IG: Pedometer accelerometer consultation evaluation (PACE)-Lift intervention - individually tailored consultations - patient handbook - individual physical walking/activity plan - physical activity diary - pedometer, accelerometer - educational training for providers CG: usual care Provider: practice nurse | Positive effect on primary outcome (significant differences at 3 months but not at 12 months), with no effect on adverse events |  |
 | with nested qualitative studies: interviews with patients, group interview with health professionals | Acceptability, Barriers, facilitators |  | 30 patients 4 practice nurses |  |  |  | Barrier and facilitator themes |
Melis et al., 2008 [37] | cRCT | Effectiveness of the intervention | Primary care, Netherlands | Community-dwelling independently living elderly people and their family caregivers 151 (85/66) | IG: 81.7 CG: 82.8 Caregivers: n.a. | IG: Dutch Geriatric Intervention Program (DGIP) - multi-professional assessment - individualized, integrated treatment plan - regular evaluation and follow-up visits CG: regular medical care Provider: primary care physician, geriatric specialist nurse (and geriatricians) | The intervention had a positive effect on primary outcomes (significant differences at 3 months but not at 6 months) |  |
Melis et al., 2010 [38] | with a nested process evaluation | Content, adherence |  | All patients from the IG (n = 85) | 81.7 |  |  | Barrier and facilitator typology derived from data |
Metzelthin et al., 2013b [39] | cRCT | Effectiveness of the intervention | Primary care, Netherlands | Community-dwelling frail elderly people 346 (193/153) | IG: 77.5 CG: 76.8 | IG: Prevention of Care (PoC) approach- multi-dimensional assessment - interdisciplinary care - tailored treatment plan - evaluation and follow-up - educational training for providers CG: usual care Provider: practice nurses, general practitioners, occupational therapists, physical therapists | No significant differences in primary outcomes | Â |
Metzelthin et al., 2013a [40] | with additional mixed-method components: - quantitative:   logbooks, evaluation forms - qualitative:   interviews with   patients and health   professionals, focus   groups with health   professionals | Extent to which the implementation occurred as planned, experiences regarding benefits, burden, barriers and facilitators |  | 7 practice nurses 12 general practitioners 6 occupational therapists 20 physical therapists 194 patients | Patients: 77.7 Health professionals: n.a. |  |  | Barrier and facilitator themes |
van Bruggen et al., 2008 [41] | cRCT | Effectiveness of the intervention | Primary care, Netherlands | People with type 2 diabetes 1640 (822/818) | IG: 67.1 CG: 67.2 | IG: - locally adapted shared care guidelines - educational training for providers CG: usual care (national guidelines) Provider: general practitioners, nurses, practice assistance | No significant differences in outcomes, but improvement in the process of diabetes care | Â |
 | with nested qualitative studies: interviews with health professionals | Barriers, facilitators |  |  |  |  |  | Barrier and facilitator themes |
Weldam et al., 2017a [42] | cRCT | Effectiveness of the intervention | Primary care, Netherlands | People with mild to severe COPD 204 (103/101) | IG: 68.0 CG: 66.0 | IG: nurse-led Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – Guidance, Research on Illness Perception (COPD-GRIP) intervention - three extra face-to-face consultations with individualized content, based on the   patient’s responses and the needs - assessment - individualized care plan - evaluation - educational training for providers CG: usual care Provider: practice/respiratory nurse | No significant difference in outcomes |  |
Weldam et al., 2017b [43] | with nested mixed-method components: - quantitative:   pre- and post-   questionnaires - qualitative: focus   groups with health   professionals | Facilitators, barriers, expectations |  | 24 nurses | Questionnaires: 45.5 Focus group: 47.4 |  |  | Barrier and facilitator themes Respondents’ agreement with pre-defined barrier statements |