MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117679566 · doi:10.1016/j.jarlif.2025.100032

Facilitators and barriers of implementing the WHO ICOPE care model in Nepal: A clinical perspective

2025· article· en· W7117679566 on OpenAlexaff
Ananta Aryal, Bineela Bhattarai, Saraswati Bhattarai, Urza Bhattarai, Milan Bhusal, Umesh Bogati, Anupama Gnawali, Ramesh Kandel, Pramod Kattel, Ashish Malla, Manish Kumar Mandal, Jagadish K. Chhetri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging Research and Lifestyle · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Work (physics)Health careQualitative researchContext (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• The Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) care model is being actively implemented worldwide, including Nepal. • ICOPE implementors in Nepal were surveyed to identify the barriers and facilitators of implementing ICOPE. • Lack of suitable infrastructure, shortage of trained workforce, low priority for geriatric health, lack of guidelines and funding were considered the major barriers. • Continuous government ICOPE training programs, support from the WHO, and motivated healthcare workers were considered the major facilitators. • Lack of systematic dedicated referral system was considered a primary barrier to complete the four steps of ICOPE care model. The Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) care model is being actively implemented worldwide, including in low-resource countries like Nepal. We aimed to conduct a survey to understand the major barriers and facilitators of implementing ICOPE in Nepal from a clinical perspective. A survey questionnaire was developed to assess the barriers and facilitators of implementing ICOPE at the micro, meso , and macro levels and the recommended four steps of ICOPE. Relevant suggestions for improving ICOPE were also collected from the implementors. Among the 11 (ICOPE implementors) respondents, four were geriatricians and seven were non-geriatric clinicians. Lack of suitable infrastructure, shortage of trained workforce, comparatively low priority for geriatric health and geriatrics, lack of national guidelines and funding were considered the major barriers for implementing ICOPE in Nepal. Major facilitators for implementing ICOPE in Nepal were motivated healthcare workers, continuous support from the WHO, and government ICOPE training programs. Lack of a systematic referral framework with no provision of electronic health records and a dedicated team were considered as major barriers in completing the recommended four steps of ICOPE. The respondents thought the ICOPE application was feasible in Nepal, which could also serve as a tool to share health records digitally. Additionally, localisation of the ICOPE pathway was suggested. The ICOPE care pathway was considered quite feasible in Nepal by the implementors, although more work is needed to remove the current barriers and embed ICOPE in the existing healthcare system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging Research and LifestyleSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207