Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing the H.O.M.E mobility intervention in acute care: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: Older adults often experience reduced mobilisation during hospitalisation, contributing to functional decline and increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Early mobility interventions in acute care settings are therefore critical to preventing functional loss. This study explored healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a multicomponent, mobility-focused intervention - Help, Optimise and Mobilise Elders (H.O.M.E). METHODS: This is a convergent mixed-methods study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sampling of 18 healthcare professionals involved in the intervention. An inductive approach and thematic content analysis were employed. Quantitative surveys were administered to the 25 implementers to measure the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. The data on fidelity, specifically adherence and dosage to the intervention was also collected. RESULTS: The quantitative survey shows that the H.O.M.E intervention was generally acceptable, although preferences for specific components differed across professional groups. Feasibility was rated lower than acceptability. Three overarching themes were identified from the qualitative data: (a) additional workload and responsibilities; (b) enhanced professional experience; and (c) challenges arising from patients. Although the intervention improved care workflows by enhancing nurses' understanding of patients' conditions and engagement levels, its implementation feasibility was constrained by patient resistance, competing clinical duties, staffing limitations and variations in intervention exposure. CONCLUSION: The quantitative and qualitative data were largely convergent, with the exception of nurses' perceptions regarding the feasibility of implementing frequent mobilisation. While the H.O.M.E intervention was recognised as beneficial for patients, its implementation was constrained by operational challenges. Adaptation of workforce could be a viable option to overcome some of these challenges. Additionally, identifying specific patient subgroups most likely to benefit from group therapy could help optimise implementation outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05484063).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2026-07-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-026-07955-0
Primary Topic
Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing the H.O.M.E mobility intervention in acute care: a mixed-methods study

Lay Khoon Lau, Michelle Jessica Pereira, Shu Yi Lydia Au, Nien Xiang Tou et al.
BMC Geriatrics
Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
article

Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing the H.O.M.E mobility intervention in acute care: a mixed-methods study

Lay Khoon Lau, Michelle Jessica Pereira, Shu Yi Lydia Au, Nien Xiang Tou, Shi Min Chua, Hoon Woon Audrey Chia, Ying Hui Dina Ee, Seok Mei Lim, Mei Ying Melanie Tan, Rui Ping Marian Lee, Weng Kin Lai, Poh Choo Chan, Bing Kit Chan, Russell Kuok Leong Yoong, Kar Yen Jane Ho, Yew Yoong Ding
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Older adults often experience reduced mobilisation during hospitalisation, contributing to functional decline and increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Early mobility interventions in acute care settings are therefore critical to preventing functional loss. This study explored healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a multicomponent, mobility-focused intervention - Help, Optimise and Mobilise Elders (H.O.M.E). METHODS: This is a convergent mixed-methods study in which semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sampling of 18 healthcare professionals involved in the intervention. An inductive approach and thematic content analysis were employed. Quantitative surveys were administered to the 25 implementers to measure the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. The data on fidelity, specifically adherence and dosage to the intervention was also collected. RESULTS: The quantitative survey shows that the H.O.M.E intervention was generally acceptable, although preferences for specific components differed across professional groups. Feasibility was rated lower than acceptability. Three overarching themes were identified from the qualitative data: (a) additional workload and responsibilities; (b) enhanced professional experience; and (c) challenges arising from patients. Although the intervention improved care workflows by enhancing nurses' understanding of patients' conditions and engagement levels, its implementation feasibility was constrained by patient resistance, competing clinical duties, staffing limitations and variations in intervention exposure. CONCLUSION: The quantitative and qualitative data were largely convergent, with the exception of nurses' perceptions regarding the feasibility of implementing frequent mobilisation. While the H.O.M.E intervention was recognised as beneficial for patients, its implementation was constrained by operational challenges. Adaptation of workforce could be a viable option to overcome some of these challenges. Additionally, identifying specific patient subgroups most likely to benefit from group therapy could help optimise implementation outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05484063).

BMC Geriatrics
Nanyang Technological University (SG), Tan Tock Seng Hospital (SG), Ng Teng Fong General Hospital (SG), Geriatric Education and Research Institute (SG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.