Older Adults (50-90 Years)NCT07475039
Project HOPEFUL: A PN-RCT With Implementation Science
A study testing Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training and Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST training in people with Older Adults (50-90 Years) and Mental Health, run by University of Florida at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This PN-RCT replicates and evaluates an 8-week warm calling treatment (i.e. caring contacts) delivered to older adults receiving home and community-based services (HCBS; classified as "homebound") in 20-30 minute call "dosages", across 3 conditions, while adding in implementation science measures at multiple levels. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 55 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Older Adults (50-90 Years), Mental Health, Depression and Suicide Ideation
- What is being tested?
- Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training and Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 400 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 5 Sep 2025to 30 Aug 2030
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 55 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
None listed.
Who cannot join
- Had a dementia diagnosis, or another form of cognitive impairment, and/or hearing impairment that would preclude phone conversation.
- Participation in another warm calling behavioral treatment or intervention study simultaneously occurring
- Does not have ongoing interactions with potential old adult participants (i.e. is a part of an optimized nutrition service provider in which they do not serve the same older adults consistently over time)
- Participation in another warm calling behavioral treatment or intervention study simultaneously occurring
- Has not worked with the study team directly in implementing the 8-week treatment
- Is not familiar with the implementation of the program
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, 32611
About this study
Official title: Project HOPEFUL (Helping Older PErsons Find Useful Links): Replicating a Partially Nested Randomized Control Trial With Implementation Science
This PN-RCT replicates and evaluates an 8-week warm calling treatment (i.e. caring contacts) delivered to older adults receiving home and community-based services (HCBS; classified as "homebound") in 20-30 minute call "dosages", across 3 conditions, while adding in implementation science measures at multiple levels. Conditions include 2 treatment (i.e. treatment provided by helpers trained in a standardized and manualized Belongingness and Empathy training grounded in narrative reminiscence and the befriending literature (BE condition), and treatment provided by helpers trained in BE + a standardized, manualized, and evidence based suicide intervention training, the Aging Variant of LivingWorks ASIST (BE + ASIST condition), and 1 control (no treatment during the trial; opportunity to receive treatment after the 8 weeks). At the conclusion of treatment, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, useability, and sustainability of the program will be evaluated by interventionists, senior center leadership, and regional leadership.
Read the detailed description
This clinical trial replicates and evaluates the BE WITH caring contacts program, equipping the Aging Services Network (ASN) with proven skills to reduce social isolation, loneliness, and elevated suicidality, while also promoting social support/well-being, and learning from the Aging Services Network about what is and is not working for long term sustainability. The study team will also learn specifically what provider behaviors contributed to mental health improvements through the quantitative coding and analysis of audio files as well as the long-term impacts of receiving the 8 week treatment on older adults' social connections and connecting behaviors (6 follow up measurement occasions).
Overall Study Design: This study is a partially nested randomized controlled trial research design (PN-RCT) with a two-level structure of clients (level-1) nested within callers (level-2) for the two treatment conditions. Given that outcomes for older adults receiving calls from the same treatment provider may be more similar than for those who receive calls from a different treatment provider, the use of multilevel modeling can account for these data dependencies.
Primary Objectives: To (a) replicate the BE WITH Innovation, (b) evaluate the mental health outcomes of older adults receiving HCBS that receive it, while (c) gaining new knowledge on the implementation and sustainability of BE WITH by learning what is and isn't working from interventionists, senior center leadership, and regional leadership.
Secondary Objectives: Enhance the ability of natural helpers to provide standardized, manualized, and evidence based treatment to older adults receiving HCBS.
Primary Endpoint: Reduction in social isolation, loneliness, and elevated suicidality and improved social support/overall quality of life for older adult participants receiving HCBS. New knowledge on the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, useability, and sustainability. Secondary Endpoints: Improved frequency of empathic and suicide intervention best practice behaviors by trained providers.
The primary endpoints for older adult participants will be assessed at baseline and every two weeks for a total of 5 measurement occasions, and at 6 month follow up. The primary endpoints for aging network stakeholders will be assessed post-treatment.
Secondary endpoints will be assessed through the quantitative coding of the recorded audio files of treatment dosages. Hypotheses include: (a) participants in the BE and BE + ASIST treatment conditions will experience statistically significant improvements across all measures when compared with those in the control condition over the course of the 8-week treatment, (b) outcome improvements for those in treatment conditions will be more pronounced for those who begin the period at greater risk (assigned high risk tier at baseline), (c) the BE WITH innovation will be found to be appropriate, feasible, and sustainable at multiple levels (i.e. interventionists, senior center leadership, regional leadership), and (d) behavioral improvements in social connections (as a result of building one's social connections plan as part of the treatment) will be found in those that participated in the two treatment groups, and not in the control group.
The study team will also be tracking the long-term outcomes of receiving the treatment on connections and connecting behaviors that older adults have in their life. The implementation of a "connections plan" (CP) within the BE training is a new aspect of this trial. This plan will be introduced in the first call dosage and revisited each call. Evaluations of it will take place at pre and post treatment, with monthly check ins, and then finally at 6 month follow up. The investigators also hypothesize that the connecting behaviors will (a) improve during treatment, and (b) be retained at 6 month follow up.
- Conditions
- Older Adults (50-90 Years), Mental Health, Depression and Suicide Ideation, Social Functioning, Quality of Life, Thwarted Belongingness
- Being tested
- Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training, Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST training
- Keywords
- Older adults, Intervention trial, Suicidality, Home Bound Meals, warm-calling
- Medical subject headings
- Psychological Well-Being, Depression, Social Adjustment, Suicidal Ideation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE trainingBehavioural
Weekly call dosages averaging 20-30 minutes each, for 8 weeks duration; with a 6 month follow up.
Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST trainingBehavioural
Weekly call dosages averaging 20-30 minutes each, for 8 weeks duration; with a 6 month follow up.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| BE condition | Experimental | BE condition which involves receiving call dosages from providers trained to foster belongingness and empathy (2 hours), grounded in the befriending literature35,36, and narrative reminiscence37. Aging Network Providers trained in BE provide a "small dose of sincere connection", through narrative reminiscence, and the "befriending" strategies.
While the majority of the warm calling of BE WITH centers on this basic connections intervention, there is a brief module on suicide risk.
While this basic "reciprocally caring relationships" treatment will be enough for the majority of participants, there will also be individuals who need more than connection, but rather targeted suicide intervention as approximately 20% of older adults receiving home and community-based services are at risk of suicide38. Receives: Behavioral: Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training |
| BE + ASIST condition | Experimental | BE + ASIST condition includes receiving call dosages from providers trained in BE + the aging variant of LivingWorks ASIST (Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training)40. Those older adults assigned to this treatment condition will have both the connections intervention, as well as suicide interventions in the chance that a suicide intervention is needed. Receives: Behavioral: Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST training |
| Control | No intervention | Control group includes no treatment, or call dosages during the 8 weeks. Every two weeks graduate research students administer the measure set, just as they did for the 2 treatment conditions. However, after the 8 weeks, these older adult participants have the opportunity to receive the call dosages (delayed waitlist control). |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Social Provisions Scale (SPS-5)
The Social Provisions Scale (SPS-5) is a 5-item measure used to evaluate a participant's level of social support. It is a shortened version of the 10-item SPS and designed for use in research studies to reduce participant burden while maintaining strong psychometric properties. The SPS is based on a theory of social support developed by Irwin Weiss and uses one positive item to assess the social provisions of Attachment, Guidance, Social Integration, Reliable alliance, and Reassurance of worth. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale, from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree". Sample items include, "There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life", "I feel part of a group of people who share my attitudes and beliefs", and "There are people I can count on in an emergency." A total score is calculated by summing the responses to the 5 questions. The scores can range from 5 to 20, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived social support.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale
The three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (Hughes et al., 2004) is a widely used instrument for measuring subjective feelings of loneliness. The scale assesses three core dimensions of loneliness through corresponding items: relational connectedness ("How often do you feel that you lack companionship?"), social connectedness ("How often do you feel left out?"), and self-perceived isolation ("How often do you feel isolated from others?"). Participants respond using a 3-point scale ranging from "hardly ever" to "often." Total scores range from 3 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness. The scale demonstrates good psychometric properties in middle-aged and older adult populations.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Patient Health Questionnaire - PHQ-9
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is a 9-item measure to assess depressive symptoms in the past 2 weeks (Kroenke et al., 2001). The scale items correspond to the 9 diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Respondents rate the frequency of each symptom on a 4-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "nearly every day." Sample items include "Little interest or pleasure in doing things" and "Poor appetite or overeating." Total scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. The PHQ-9 includes an additional functional impairment item that assesses how much the problems have affected the respondents' daily activities. The scale has shown strong psychometric properties across diverse populations. Among U.S. older adults, the PHQ-9 showed high sensitivity (88%) and specificity (80%) for identifying major depression, as well as the combination of major and minor depression (Phelan et al., 2010).
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)
The Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) is a self-reported outcome measure to assess health-related quality of life. The raw answers from the 12 questions are processed to produce two main, standardized summary scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). We only used the MCS factor in this study as the treatment is targeting mental health. The MCS computed score has a range from 17 to 64 in the analysis and was based on the linear combination of six computed, generated, iterated weights. A low Mental Component Summary (MCS) score indicates poorer self-perceived mental health and lower health-related quality of life.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ-15)
The Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ; Van Orden et al., 2012) was used to evaluate thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness through 15 items. An adapted version tailored specifically for older adults was used which includes 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all true for me) to 3 (Very true for me). The instrument includes 2 sets of characteristics: (1) the 9-item Thwarted Belongingness (e.g., "I feel disconnected from other people."); and (2) the 6-item Perceived Burdensomeness (e.g., "I think my death would be a relief to the people in my life."). Six questions from the Thwarted Belongingness subscale were reverse-coded when the overall score across questions was computed due to the nature of those questions. In particular, the total score on the INQ is calculated by summing the questions responses to all items and reversing the appropriate ones. As a result, greater scores on each subscale reflect higher levels of the respective construct being measured.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: AIM
AIM: The Affect Intensity Measure is a 40-item, self-report questionnaire used in psychology to determine the characteristic strength or weakness with which an individual experiences both positive and negative emotions.4-item instrument measuring the acceptability of an intervention.
Item Scale: Each of the 4 items is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, typically ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree).
Calculation: The final score is the mean (average) of the four individual item scores.
Interpretation: Higher average scores indicate greater perceived acceptability of the intervention among the respondents.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: IAM
IAM: The Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) is a 4-item survey used in implementation science to assess the perceived suitability or relevance of a healthcare intervention or implementation strategy.
Item Scale: Each of the 4 items is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, typically ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree).
Average Item Rating: To find the average for a specific item, sum the scores from all respondents and divide by the total number of respondents.
Aggregate Score: To calculate the overall IAM score for an individual or group, take the mean (average) of the four items.
Interpretation: Higher average scores indicate that stakeholders perceive the intervention as more appropriate, fitting, or relevant to their specific setting or population.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: FIM
FIM: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) is a standardized assessment tool used primarily in rehabilitation to measure a patient's level of disability and the amount of assistance they require for daily activities.
Item Scale: Each of the 4 items is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, typically ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree).
Final Score: Sum the scores of all 4 items and divide by 4 to get the individual respondent's mean score.
Interpretation: Higher scores (closer to 5) indicate that the intervention is perceived as more feasible, "doable," or "possible". There are currently no established "cut-off" scores; results are typically compared across different time points or groups.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: SUS
SUS: The system Usability Scale is a 10-item measure of digital intervention usability. Items are scored on a 5-item Likert scale (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree).
Convert these raw ratings into a "score contribution" for each item:
Odd-numbered items (1, 3, 5, 7, 9): Subtract 1 from the raw user response (i.e. X-1) Even-numbered items (2, 4, 6, 8, 10): Subtract the raw user response from 5 (i.e. 5-X) Result: Every item will now have a value between 0 and 4.
Aggregate Calculation: Sum the Scores: Add all 10 converted item scores together. This will result in a total between 0 and 40. Then multiply this sum by 2.5. This step scales the total from a 40-point maximum to a 100-point maximum.
Interpretation of Results: The final SUS score is a measure of perceived usability, not a percentage. Generally, the following benchmarks apply: Score < 51: Often considered "poor" or "unaccepta
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Household Food Security Survey Module - 10 item (Adult Only)
The Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) is the primary, validated survey tool used to measure the prevalence and severity of food insecurity in the United States and other countries like Canada.
The Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) is scored by calculating a raw score based on the number of affirmative responses to its questions. This raw score is then used to classify households into specific food security categories.
0 affirmative responses = High Food Security 1-2 affirmative responses = Marginal Food Security 3-5 affirmative responses = Low Food Security 6-10 affirmative responses = Very Low Food Security
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Secondary outcomes (2)
Session Rating Scale
The 4-item Session Rating Scale is a therapeutic practice measure that treatment recipients complete after receiving treatment. This allows trained helpers to make real-time adjustments to improve treatment effectiveness and prevent dropout. Participants marked their responses on a Likert-Scale, ranging from 0 to 10, representing: (a) the quality of the therapeutic relationship, (b) agreement on goals and topics, (c) the relevance and fit of the treatment provider's approach, and (d) the overall effectiveness of the treatment dosage. The scores for each domain were summed to generate a total possible score of 40. A total score below 36 or a score below 9 on any single item is a potential indicator of concern, which should prompt the therapist to discuss the issue openly with the client and make necessary adjustments to the session's direction or approach.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science (CFIR) Interview Guide Tool
The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) Interview Guide Tool is an online, interactive resource that helps users build a customized semi-structured interview guide based on the five domains and associated constructs of the CFIR. This tool does not produce a single "score" like a standard survey. Instead, it is a qualitative tool used to identify determinants (barriers and facilitators) that are then rated using a specific valence and magnitude system.
Measured: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Mar 2026
- Study start5 Sep 2025
- Primary completion30 Aug 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Aug 2030 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Older Adults (50-90 Years)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of FloridaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Conditions include 2 treatment (i.e. treatment provided by helpers trained in a standardized and manualized Belongingness and Empathy training grounded in narrative reminiscence and the befriending literature (BE condition), and treatment provided by helpers trained in BE + a standardized, manualized, and evidence based suicide intervention training, the Aging Variant of LivingWorks ASIST (BE + ASIST condition), and 1 control (no treatment during the trial; opportunity to receive treatment after the 8 weeks).
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 400 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Florida
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Georgia State University
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07475039
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB202501649
- Other IDs
- 90INNU0058-01-00
- Status last verified
- Nov 2025
- First submitted
- 18 Dec 2025
- Last updated
- 16 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Project HOPEFUL (Helping Older PErsons Find Useful Links): Replicating a Partially Nested Randomized Control Trial With Implementation Science
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07475039
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB202501649
- Conditions
- Older Adults (50-90 Years), Mental Health, Depression and Suicide Ideation, Social Functioning, Quality of Life, Thwarted Belongingness
- Keywords
- Older adults, Intervention trial, Suicidality, Home Bound Meals, warm-calling
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 400 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of FloridaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Georgia State University
- Study start
- 5 Sep 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Aug 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Aug 2030 (estimated)
- First posted
- 16 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This PN-RCT replicates and evaluates an 8-week warm calling treatment (i.e. caring contacts) delivered to older adults receiving home and community-based services (HCBS; classified as "homebound") in 20-30 minute call "dosages", across 3 conditions, while adding in implementation science measures at multiple levels. Conditions include 2 treatment (i.e. treatment provided by helpers trained in a standardized and manualized Belongingness and Empathy training grounded in narrative reminiscence and the befriending literature (BE condition), and treatment provided by helpers trained in BE + a standardized, manualized, and evidence based suicide intervention training, the Aging Variant of LivingWorks ASIST (BE + ASIST condition), and 1 control (no treatment during the trial; opportunity to receive treatment after the 8 weeks). At the conclusion of treatment, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, useability, and sustainability of the program will be evaluated by interventionists, senior center leadership, and regional leadership.
Detailed description
This clinical trial replicates and evaluates the BE WITH caring contacts program, equipping the Aging Services Network (ASN) with proven skills to reduce social isolation, loneliness, and elevated suicidality, while also promoting social support/well-being, and learning from the Aging Services Network about what is and is not working for long term sustainability. The study team will also learn specifically what provider behaviors contributed to mental health improvements through the quantitative coding and analysis of audio files as well as the long-term impacts of receiving the 8 week treatment on older adults' social connections and connecting behaviors (6 follow up measurement occasions).
Overall Study Design: This study is a partially nested randomized controlled trial research design (PN-RCT) with a two-level structure of clients (level-1) nested within callers (level-2) for the two treatment conditions. Given that outcomes for older adults receiving calls from the same treatment provider may be more similar than for those who receive calls from a different treatment provider, the use of multilevel modeling can account for these data dependencies.
Primary Objectives: To (a) replicate the BE WITH Innovation, (b) evaluate the mental health outcomes of older adults receiving HCBS that receive it, while (c) gaining new knowledge on the implementation and sustainability of BE WITH by learning what is and isn't working from interventionists, senior center leadership, and regional leadership.
Secondary Objectives: Enhance the ability of natural helpers to provide standardized, manualized, and evidence based treatment to older adults receiving HCBS.
Primary Endpoint: Reduction in social isolation, loneliness, and elevated suicidality and improved social support/overall quality of life for older adult participants receiving HCBS. New knowledge on the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, useability, and sustainability. Secondary Endpoints: Improved frequency of empathic and suicide intervention best practice behaviors by trained providers.
The primary endpoints for older adult participants will be assessed at baseline and every two weeks for a total of 5 measurement occasions, and at 6 month follow up. The primary endpoints for aging network stakeholders will be assessed post-treatment.
Secondary endpoints will be assessed through the quantitative coding of the recorded audio files of treatment dosages. Hypotheses include: (a) participants in the BE and BE + ASIST treatment conditions will experience statistically significant improvements across all measures when compared with those in the control condition over the course of the 8-week treatment, (b) outcome improvements for those in treatment conditions will be more pronounced for those who begin the period at greater risk (assigned high risk tier at baseline), (c) the BE WITH innovation will be found to be appropriate, feasible, and sustainable at multiple levels (i.e. interventionists, senior center leadership, regional leadership), and (d) behavioral improvements in social connections (as a result of building one's social connections plan as part of the treatment) will be found in those that participated in the two treatment groups, and not in the control group.
The study team will also be tracking the long-term outcomes of receiving the treatment on connections and connecting behaviors that older adults have in their life. The implementation of a "connections plan" (CP) within the BE training is a new aspect of this trial. This plan will be introduced in the first call dosage and revisited each call. Evaluations of it will take place at pre and post treatment, with monthly check ins, and then finally at 6 month follow up. The investigators also hypothesize that the connecting behaviors will (a) improve during treatment, and (b) be retained at 6 month follow up.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Conditions include 2 treatment (i.e. treatment provided by helpers trained in a standardized and manualized Belongingness and Empathy training grounded in narrative reminiscence and the befriending literature (BE condition), and treatment provided by helpers trained in BE + a standardized, manualized, and evidence based suicide intervention training, the Aging Variant of LivingWorks ASIST (BE + ASIST condition), and 1 control (no treatment during the trial; opportunity to receive treatment after the 8 weeks).
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| BE condition | Experimental | Behavioral: Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE trainingBE condition which involves receiving call dosages from providers trained to foster belongingness and empathy (2 hours), grounded in the befriending literature35,36, and narrative reminiscence37. Aging Network Providers trained in BE provide a "small dose of sincere connection", through narrative reminiscence, and the "befriending" strategies. While the majority of the warm calling of BE WITH centers on this basic connections intervention, there is a brief module on suicide risk. While this basic "reciprocally caring relationships" treatment will be enough for the majority of participants, there will also be individuals who need more than connection, but rather targeted suicide intervention as approximately 20% of older adults receiving home and community-based services are at risk of suicide38. |
| BE + ASIST condition | Experimental | Behavioral: Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST trainingBE + ASIST condition includes receiving call dosages from providers trained in BE + the aging variant of LivingWorks ASIST (Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training)40. Those older adults assigned to this treatment condition will have both the connections intervention, as well as suicide interventions in the chance that a suicide intervention is needed. |
| Control | No intervention | –Control group includes no treatment, or call dosages during the 8 weeks. Every two weeks graduate research students administer the measure set, just as they did for the 2 treatment conditions. However, after the 8 weeks, these older adult participants have the opportunity to receive the call dosages (delayed waitlist control). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 55 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Had a dementia diagnosis, or another form of cognitive impairment, and/or hearing impairment that would preclude phone conversation.
- Participation in another warm calling behavioral treatment or intervention study simultaneously occurring
- Does not have ongoing interactions with potential old adult participants (i.e. is a part of an optimized nutrition service provider in which they do not serve the same older adults consistently over time)
- Participation in another warm calling behavioral treatment or intervention study simultaneously occurring
- Has not worked with the study team directly in implementing the 8-week treatment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE trainingWeekly call dosages averaging 20-30 minutes each, for 8 weeks duration; with a 6 month follow up. | Behavioural | BE condition |
| Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST trainingWeekly call dosages averaging 20-30 minutes each, for 8 weeks duration; with a 6 month follow up. | Behavioural | BE + ASIST condition |
Primary outcome
Social Provisions Scale (SPS-5)
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
The Social Provisions Scale (SPS-5) is a 5-item measure used to evaluate a participant's level of social support. It is a shortened version of the 10-item SPS and designed for use in research studies to reduce participant burden while maintaining strong psychometric properties. The SPS is based on a theory of social support developed by Irwin Weiss and uses one positive item to assess the social provisions of Attachment, Guidance, Social Integration, Reliable alliance, and Reassurance of worth. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale, from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree". Sample items include, "There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life", "I feel part of a group of people who share my attitudes and beliefs", and "There are people I can count on in an emergency." A total score is calculated by summing the responses to the 5 questions. The scores can range from 5 to 20, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived social support.
University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
The three-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (Hughes et al., 2004) is a widely used instrument for measuring subjective feelings of loneliness. The scale assesses three core dimensions of loneliness through corresponding items: relational connectedness ("How often do you feel that you lack companionship?"), social connectedness ("How often do you feel left out?"), and self-perceived isolation ("How often do you feel isolated from others?"). Participants respond using a 3-point scale ranging from "hardly ever" to "often." Total scores range from 3 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness. The scale demonstrates good psychometric properties in middle-aged and older adult populations.
Patient Health Questionnaire - PHQ-9
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is a 9-item measure to assess depressive symptoms in the past 2 weeks (Kroenke et al., 2001). The scale items correspond to the 9 diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Respondents rate the frequency of each symptom on a 4-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "nearly every day." Sample items include "Little interest or pleasure in doing things" and "Poor appetite or overeating." Total scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. The PHQ-9 includes an additional functional impairment item that assesses how much the problems have affected the respondents' daily activities. The scale has shown strong psychometric properties across diverse populations. Among U.S. older adults, the PHQ-9 showed high sensitivity (88%) and specificity (80%) for identifying major depression, as well as the combination of major and minor depression (Phelan et al., 2010).
Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
The Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) is a self-reported outcome measure to assess health-related quality of life. The raw answers from the 12 questions are processed to produce two main, standardized summary scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). We only used the MCS factor in this study as the treatment is targeting mental health. The MCS computed score has a range from 17 to 64 in the analysis and was based on the linear combination of six computed, generated, iterated weights. A low Mental Component Summary (MCS) score indicates poorer self-perceived mental health and lower health-related quality of life.
Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ-15)
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
The Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ; Van Orden et al., 2012) was used to evaluate thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness through 15 items. An adapted version tailored specifically for older adults was used which includes 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all true for me) to 3 (Very true for me). The instrument includes 2 sets of characteristics: (1) the 9-item Thwarted Belongingness (e.g., "I feel disconnected from other people."); and (2) the 6-item Perceived Burdensomeness (e.g., "I think my death would be a relief to the people in my life."). Six questions from the Thwarted Belongingness subscale were reverse-coded when the overall score across questions was computed due to the nature of those questions. In particular, the total score on the INQ is calculated by summing the questions responses to all items and reversing the appropriate ones. As a result, greater scores on each subscale reflect higher levels of the respective construct being measured.
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: AIM
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
AIM: The Affect Intensity Measure is a 40-item, self-report questionnaire used in psychology to determine the characteristic strength or weakness with which an individual experiences both positive and negative emotions.4-item instrument measuring the acceptability of an intervention. Item Scale: Each of the 4 items is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, typically ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). Calculation: The final score is the mean (average) of the four individual item scores. Interpretation: Higher average scores indicate greater perceived acceptability of the intervention among the respondents.
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: IAM
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
IAM: The Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) is a 4-item survey used in implementation science to assess the perceived suitability or relevance of a healthcare intervention or implementation strategy. Item Scale: Each of the 4 items is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, typically ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). Average Item Rating: To find the average for a specific item, sum the scores from all respondents and divide by the total number of respondents. Aggregate Score: To calculate the overall IAM score for an individual or group, take the mean (average) of the four items. Interpretation: Higher average scores indicate that stakeholders perceive the intervention as more appropriate, fitting, or relevant to their specific setting or population.
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: FIM
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
FIM: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) is a standardized assessment tool used primarily in rehabilitation to measure a patient's level of disability and the amount of assistance they require for daily activities. Item Scale: Each of the 4 items is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, typically ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). Final Score: Sum the scores of all 4 items and divide by 4 to get the individual respondent's mean score. Interpretation: Higher scores (closer to 5) indicate that the intervention is perceived as more feasible, "doable," or "possible". There are currently no established "cut-off" scores; results are typically compared across different time points or groups.
Implementation Science Sustainability Survey Measures: SUS
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
SUS: The system Usability Scale is a 10-item measure of digital intervention usability. Items are scored on a 5-item Likert scale (Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree). Convert these raw ratings into a "score contribution" for each item: Odd-numbered items (1, 3, 5, 7, 9): Subtract 1 from the raw user response (i.e. X-1) Even-numbered items (2, 4, 6, 8, 10): Subtract the raw user response from 5 (i.e. 5-X) Result: Every item will now have a value between 0 and 4. Aggregate Calculation: Sum the Scores: Add all 10 converted item scores together. This will result in a total between 0 and 40. Then multiply this sum by 2.5. This step scales the total from a 40-point maximum to a 100-point maximum. Interpretation of Results: The final SUS score is a measure of perceived usability, not a percentage. Generally, the following benchmarks apply: Score < 51: Often considered "poor" or "unaccepta
Household Food Security Survey Module - 10 item (Adult Only)
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
The Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) is the primary, validated survey tool used to measure the prevalence and severity of food insecurity in the United States and other countries like Canada. The Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) is scored by calculating a raw score based on the number of affirmative responses to its questions. This raw score is then used to classify households into specific food security categories. 0 affirmative responses = High Food Security 1-2 affirmative responses = Marginal Food Security 3-5 affirmative responses = Low Food Security 6-10 affirmative responses = Very Low Food Security
2 secondary outcomes
Session Rating Scale
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science (CFIR) Interview Guide Tool
Time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Mar 2026.
Related trials for Older Adults (50-90 Years)
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study of Psychedelics in Healthy Older Adults With Low Well-being
Anhedonia in Healthy Volunteers, Older Adults (50-90 Years)
Active, not recruiting
Integrating Depression Care Into HIV Services for Older People With HIV Using a Stepped Care, Task-Sharing Approach.
Older Adults (50-90 Years), Depression
Not yet recruiting
Let's Increase Fuerza (Strength) Through Exercise and Diet
Older Adults (50-90 Years), Cognition
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training and Standardized and manualized warm calls from providers trained in the BE training + ASIST training in people with Older Adults (50-90 Years) and Mental Health, run by University of Florida at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 0 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Mar 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Laura R Shannonhouse, PhD (352-273-4332, lshannonhouse@coe.ufl.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Social Provisions Scale (SPS-5) (time frame: Baseline; 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks; 6 month follow up). The study lists 10 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Mar 2026.