Improving Palliative Care in Residential Aged Care Using Telehealth: Protocol for a Realist Process Evaluation Embedded in a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study describes the protocol for a realist process evaluation of IMPART (Improving Palliative Care in Residential Aged Care Using Telehealth), to be trialed through a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in Australia. IMPART consists of 2 key intervention activities: specialist palliative support provided through telehealth and tailored staff education. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the realist process evaluation are to (1) identify and explore the contexts and mechanisms that enable or hinder the implementation of the IMPART intervention, and (2) develop and refine a program theory to determine whether and how successful implementation of IMPART can be facilitated. METHODS: We will conduct this process evaluation in 3 phases, guided by a realist framework. First, to hypothesize an initial program theory, we will review trial documentation and literature to determine how IMPART is expected to work and identify the barriers and facilitators likely to influence implementation. To test this theory in the second phase, a case study methodology will draw on multiple data sources (qualitative and quantitative) from 10 participating residential aged care facilities. These include interviews with staff involved in implementation, data on staff engagement with training, program documentation, activity logs, action plans, and facility information. In the final phase, program theories developed from the case studies will be refined through consultation with the IMPART research team. This will inform the development of a refined program theory that provides key information about what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances in the implementation of interventions aiming to improve palliative care in residential aged care. RESULTS: This study was reviewed and approved by the Royal Melbourne Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. The randomized controlled trial commenced in May 2023, with completion anticipated in November 2025. Funding began in January 2022. Data for the realist process evaluation will be collected between May 2023 and February 2026. As of October 2025, a total of 61 interviews have been completed. Data analysis is ongoing, and a publication describing the results will be prepared in 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Applying a realist framework to explore process outcomes allows for an in-depth inquiry into what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances in the implementation of complex interventions aiming to improve palliative care in residential aged care. This realist process evaluation has the potential to provide transferable, context-specific findings that can support the development of meaningful policy and accelerate practice change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622000760774; https://tinyurl.com/2uv34unr. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/68332.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.148 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".