Cited by 2Health Policy Implementation ScienceCOVID-19 and Mental HealthTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Adaptation and Implementation of a Volunteer-Delivered, Telephone-Based, Social Support Program HOW-R-U? During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pragmatic Study

Robinson, Elizabeth, Dickins, Marissa, Lad, Lina, Beard, Sharryn, McGill, Deidre, Hayes, Johanna, Fabri, Anne Marie, Wade, Henni +2 more·2024·The Gerontologist

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Public health concerns surrounding social isolation and loneliness heightened during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, as infection prevention measures led to increased feelings of loneliness and depression. Our objective was to evaluate the implementation of the HOW-R-U? program, during the pandemic (March 2020-December 2021). HOW-R-U? is a weekly volunteer-delivered telephone program designed to facilitate social connection and ease feelings of social isolation, loneliness, and depression in older people. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This pragmatic study used the Implementation Framework for Aged Care to adapt and implement HOW-R-U? in an Australian aged and community care organization and a tertiary health service in Melbourne. The evaluation involved analysis of program data, semistructured interviews, and surveys with program recipients, volunteers, and referrers. A process evaluation was conducted alongside an assessment of outcomes including pre- and post-symptoms of isolation, depression, and loneliness. RESULTS: The implementation evaluation indicated that codesigned systems and processes effectively supported the ongoing implementation of HOW-R-U? with transition into business as usual across both organizations. Recipients reported that telephone calls had a positive impact on their lives, whereas volunteers reported enjoyment of supporting others. Several challenges were identified, namely in program reach and fidelity. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: HOW-R-U? was well regarded by all involved, and evaluation learnings have informed implementation into business as usual by both organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geront/gnae034

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, E., Dickins, M., Lad, L., Beard, S., McGill, D., Hayes, J., Fabri, A. M., Wade, H., Meyer, C., & Lowthian, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Bolton Clarke Research Institute , Melbourne, Victoria , Australia
  • Monash Health (AU)
  • Bolton Clarke , Melbourne, Victoria , Australia
  • Northern Health (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Elizabeth
Venue
The Gerontologist
Published
2024-04-24
Volume
64
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5341
OpenAlex
W4395081388
Cited by
2
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 2
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Better Care Victoria (IF19122)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
social isolation, loneliness, depression, older adults, COVID-19 pandemic, program adaptation, implementation evaluation, implementation fidelity, social connectedness, elderly care, community-based care
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Aged, Australia, Depression, Female, Humans, Loneliness, Male, Social Isolation, Social Support, Telephone, Volunteers, Program Evaluation, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review