Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The aim of the AUDACE study is to evaluate the 'Bien chez Moi 2.0' programme, to assess how, for whom and why do assistive devices, integrated with occupational therapy support, enable older people to remain at home, and under what conditions? The study assesses the impact on areas such as the degree of autonomy, the extent to which life goals are taken into account, the feeling of security at home, the use of hospital emergency services and the postponement of definitive institutionalisation in a nursing home. The expected results of this study are to be able to robustly describe the impact of the 'Bien chez moi 2.0' programme in the areas listed above.
Background The BCM2.0 programme provides occupational therapy sessions and assistive devices to support older people who want to age in place. The investigators designed the AUDACE evaluation to improve understanding of the programme and its effectiveness, and to promote a favourable context for the professional empowerment of occupational therapists as primary care providers.
Methods The investigators involved home care occupational therapists at every stage of the protocol design to ensure that the tools, training, and organisational structures put in place for the evaluation could also form the basis of their routine practice, harmonising their practices, ethos and processes.
The investigators designed a realist mixed methods evaluation to answer the following question: "How, for whom and why do assistive devices, integrated with occupational therapy support, enable older people to remain at home, and under what conditions?" Interrelated components addressed different research sub-questions: (1a) To describe the evaluation population, interventions, and contexts: a descriptive quantitative study using baseline data from all BCM2.0 beneficiaries. (1b) To describe the frailty process in older people receiving the programme: a qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews with a biographical dimension. (2) To explore the enrolment process: focus groups with occupational therapists, following a realist approach. (3) To assess effectiveness: a prospective cohort study with up to 12 months follow-up of all BCM2.0 beneficiaries. (4) To identify barriers and facilitators to implementation: multiple nested case study in five areas, using a realist approach. (5) To build a learning community to clarify ethical considerations: communities of practice meetings.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| BCM2.0 | Experimental | The BCM2.0 programme provides occupational therapy sessions and assistive devices to support older people who want to age in place. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCM2.0 | Other | The BCM2.0 programme provides occupational therapy sessions and assistive devices to support older people who want to age in place. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| COPM | Endpoints will be calculated as the within-subject difference in measurement between baseline and six-month follow-up in Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), assessing daily occupations of importance that people are unable to perform. Scale description: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure Range 1-10 Higher score = Better outcome | At enrolment and six months follow up. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Short FES-I | Endpoint will be calculated as the within-subject difference in measurement between baseline and six-month follow-up for short FES-I (short Fall efficacy scale - international, measuring concern over the possibility of falling) Scale description: short Fall efficacy scale - international Range 7-28 Higher score = Worse outcome | At enrolment and six months follow up. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thérèse Van Durme | Contact | +32 (0)2 764 30 99 | therese.vandurme@uclouvain.be |
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ergo2.0 | Recruiting | Yvoir | B-5530 | Belgium |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 41965516 | Derived | Filipovic-Pierucci A, Alvarez Irusta L, de la Croix T, Ledoux A, Van Durme T. AUDACE: a study protocol for the realist mixed methods evaluation of the BCM2.0 occupational therapy and assistive device programme for older people aging in place. BMC Prim Care. 2026 Apr 11;27(1):201. doi: 10.1186/s12875-026-03306-5. |
Not provided
Not provided
IPD will be shared for all collected data. Pseudonymised individual study data will undergo an anonymisation process with the help of an expert in data anonymity to ensure that no combination of data would allow re-identification of participants. The data will be publicly available on UCLouvain's public open data repository http://dataverse.uclouvain.be/.
IPD will be shared after the complete study data has been collected and anonymised (expected data: january 2026). This data will remain available on dataverse.uclouvain.be with no end date.
ICF and study protocol will be published in a scientific journal. This data will remain available on the journal website with no end date.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000073496 | Frailty |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D010335 | Pathologic Processes |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Health-related QoL | Endpoint will be calculated as the within-subject difference in measurement between baseline and six-month follow-up for EQ-5D-5L mapped to Belgian utility scores. Scale description: EQ-5D-5L Range: Below 0 to 1 Higher score = Better outcome | At enrolment and six months follow up. |
| Hospitalisation | Endpoint will be calculated as the within-subject difference in measurement between baseline and six-month follow-up for use of hospitalisation and institutionalisation in a nursing home (number of stay in the last six months). Scale description: Number of stay in hospital or nursing home Range: 0+ Higher score = Worse outcome | At enrolment and six months follow up. |
| Use of assistive devices | Endpoint will be calculated as the within-subject difference in measurement between baseline and six-month follow-up for use of assistive devices (binary response). | At enrolment and six months follow up. |
| Sense of security | Endpoint will be calculated as the within-subject difference in measurement between baseline and six-month follow-up for sense of security (on a 7-point Likert scale). Range: 1-7 Higher score = Better outcome | At enrolment and six months follow up. |
| Entry in nursing home | Days since enrolment when the person entered a nursing home. Analysed as a right censored variable. The event happening in a worse outcome. Death is treated as censoring. | Any time within the first six months after enrolment. |
| (I)ADL | Endpoint will be calculated as the within-subject difference in measurement between baseline and six-month follow-up for ad-hoc questions on assistance received on(I)ADL domains. (Instrumental) Activities of Daily Living How many of 15 activities need help to be performed? Two scores: informal caregiver help, and professional caregiver help. Range: 0-15 Higher value = Worse outcome | At enrolment and at six month follow up. |