Table 1.

Comparison of Interpretation and Implementation of Initial and Current Trials

Attribute of ImplementationInterpretation & Implementation: Initial TrialInterpretation & Implementation: Current Trial
Core elements of the Health TAPESTRY intervention
Trained community volunteers
  • Volunteers were age 18 years or in university

  • Volunteers were coordinated by 1 dedicated Volunteer Coordinator at a local nonprofit senior center

  • Volunteers ranged in age, and visited patients in younger-older pairs when possible

  • Volunteers were trained with a standard presentation and practice session that included use of standardized patients, and an online Virtual Learning Centre with video and quiz modules. Ongoing learning included Lunch and Learn sessions of interest or identified need to volunteers.

  • Volunteers had same age criteria

  • Across the 6 sites, there were 5 dedicated Volunteer Coordinators, 4 employed by a national organization and 1 (who managed 2 sites) by a local nonprofit

  • Volunteers ranged in age, visited patients in pairs, without specific age pairings

  • Volunteers were trained with a standard presentation (altered slightly by site) and practice session that included role play, and an online Virtual Learning Centre with video and quiz modules. Ongoing learning was the same as initial trial.

Interprofessional primary health care teams
  • 2 clinical sites of 1 well-resourced FHT took part

  • Huddle teams ranged in size during the implementation: 1 site had approximately 7 members, the other had approximately 4

  • A research team member joined the huddle to keep the teams up to date on the intervention

  • 6 individual FHTs took part (including the group from the initial trial)

  • Huddle teams ranged in size (3-8 members) based on clinical resources and capacity (described in Supplemental Table 1)

  • No research team member joined the huddle

Technology
  • Used the initial version of the TAP-App (TAP-App 1.0)

  • Volunteer Coordinators set volunteer visits with the TAP-App

  • Volunteers entered patient survey data into the TAP-App

  • TAP-App automatically created TAP-Reports which were uploaded to the huddle team and primary care team members EMR inboxes

  • Used the same TAP-App (TAP-App 1.0)

  • Volunteer Coordinators set visits in the same way

  • Volunteers entered patient survey data the same way

  • The TAP-App automatically created TAP-Reports and sent them to a care provider dashboard where they could view and download the reports

Community engagement and connections
  • List of community-based health and social services was created for the 1 community

  • Health team members and volunteers were encouraged to help connect patients to community services

  • Lists of community-based health and social services were created for each community

  • Health team members were encouraged to help patients connect to community services, and volunteers were in most communities

Additional contextual elements
Community setting
  • Took place in 1 community

  • Took place in 6 communities across Ontario (including the initial community)

Program structure
  • Volunteers conducted home visits for the initial surveys, then did a follow-up visit with more surveys 3 months later

  • Research outcomes were collected by the research team

  • Volunteers conducted home visits for the initial surveys, then did a follow-up visit with more surveys 6 months later

  • Research outcomes were collected by the volunteers

  • EMR = electronic medical record; FHT = family health team; TAP-App = web-based application on a tablet computer; TAP-Reports = reports automatically generated by the TAP-App and transmitted to clinics.