Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Mar 19;20(3):e0318513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318513

Development and evaluation of a Physiotherapy-led, WHO-ICOPE-Based, Person-Centered Integrated Care Program (PTICOPE) module to enhance intrinsic capacity in older adults: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Nurhazrina Noordin 1,2, Akkradate Siriphorn 2, Yu Chye Wah 3, Maria Justine 1,2,*
Editor: Yogesh Kumar Jain4
PMCID: PMC11922222  PMID: 40106417

Abstract

Background

Declining intrinsic capacity (IC), encompassing domains such as locomotion, cognitive function, vitality, vision, hearing, and psychological well-being, is prevalent among older adults, impacting independence and quality of life (QoL). This study aims to develop and evaluate the Physiotherapy-led Person-Centered Integrated Care for Older People (PTICOPE) based on the WHO-ICOPE framework to enhance IC among older adults in Malaysia.

Methods

This is a 12-week, multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 70 community-dwelling older adults aged 60–75, recruited from three Pusat Aktiviti Warga Emas (PAWE) (Activity Center for Older Adults) in the Northern region of Malaysia. Participants will be randomized to either the intervention group, receiving the PTICOPE module workbook and guided use, or the control group, receiving general IC information, healthcare education, and self-care management. The recruitment of participants for this study has not yet commenced. Recruitment is expected to start after completing the validation of the PTICOPE module, however, it is anticipated that the recruitment start date is in February 2025 and will end in August 2025. Primary outcomes, including locomotor, psychological, cognitive, vitality, visual, and hearing functions using validated scales, will be collected at baseline, 4th, 8th, and 12th week of the study period. Secondary outcomes will evaluate QoL, activities of daily living, urogenital health, and oral health at baseline and 12th week. The normality of data will be checked. The independent t-tests, Chi-square tests, paired t-tests, and Repeated measures ANOVA will be used for data analysis, with a significant level at p < 0.05.

Discussion

This study will develop a PTICOPE based on the WHO-ICOPE framework and test its efficacy in the older population residing in the community. The findings of this study hold the potential to establish an evidence-based approach for enhancing IC among community-dwelling older adults.

Trials registration

Thai Clinical Trials (Number: TCTR20241029007).

Introduction

Intrinsic capacity (IC) is a novel concept referring to the combination of an individual’s physical and mental abilities that define healthy and active aging, especially in later life [1,2]. The World Health Organization emphasizes that the well-being of older adults must be holistic, encompassing optimal functional capacity across six domains: locomotion, cognitive function, vitality, vision, hearing, and psychological function, which serve as biomarkers of healthy aging [3]. Older adults can achieve a higher quality of life (QoL) in their later years when they are in a supportive environment and reach the peak of each health domain, thereby reducing societal burdens [2]. However, as age advances, maintaining optimal IC becomes challenging due to natural aging processes, comorbidities, and healthcare services disruption [4,5].

Numerous studies have reported a high prevalence of IC decline, ranging from 49.9% to 84.5% [68]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis indicated a pooled prevalence of IC decline of 67.8% within community settings (95% CI: 57.0-78.5%; p < 0.001) in which China had the lowest prevalence at 66.0% (95% CI: 53.2-78.9%), compared to 73.0% (95% CI: 59.8-86.3%) in other countries [1]. Another review and meta-analysis, using the WHO’s Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) screening tool, identified an overall IC impairment prevalence of 55.0%, with domain-specific prevalence rates as follows: locomotion (17.5%), cognition (18.2%), psychological well-being (12.1%), vitality (8.5%), vision (17.9%), and hearing (14.4%) [9]. Notably, the domains most and least affected by decline appear to differ by country. For instance, locomotion was reported as the most impacted domain in China, with psychological function least affected [10], while in India, locomotion was most impacted and vitality the least [8]. These variations may suggest the need for setting-specific, person-centered approaches and multidisciplinary care strategies to support older adults in the community considering differences in the sociodemographic factors, cultural norms, and local healthcare policy and infrastructure.

In response to the increasing global challenge of IC decline, the WHO launched the Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) framework in 2017, also known as WHO-ICOPE intending to provide a systematic approach to meeting the diverse health needs of older adults and to promote healthy aging within the community settings [11]. The framework consists mainly of the guidelines for a person-centered assessment process that guides the creation of individualized care plans informed by screening outcomes, followed by regular monitoring to assess effectiveness. The framework also has an additional emphasis on the value of involving community members and caregivers and encourages fostering connections with the broader environment and society. Several studies have applied the WHO-ICOPE framework to implement a person-centered care model for older adults. For instance, while the AMICOPE model provides a foundation, it has notable limitations, particularly its minimal focus on sensory domains [12]. Another approach, the INSPIRE-ICOPE program, was developed for older adults in affluent countries with generally higher education levels [13], which could reduce its applicability in culturally diverse settings such as Malaysia. Additionally, one study that used the ICOPE guidelines concentrated on a limited set of domains, specifically addressing cognitive, locomotor, and psychological aspects [14]. Given these limitations, further research is necessary to establish a more comprehensive, person-centered model that spans all IC domains, incorporating physical activity, personalized guidance, and routine follow-ups. Consequently, there is a need for healthcare providers to create robust, person-centered integrated care models that foster high functional capacity and improved well-being.

It is evident from previous studies that strategies for enhancing IC varied, which could be due to the researchers’ aim to target the specific needs of the study population. Due to that, interventions to enhance IC and functional abilities should be individualized, focusing on specific goals set by each individual, and can be delivered by any member of the multidisciplinary team. Furthermore, as Malaysia’s older population, particularly those in rural communities, may have limited access to comprehensive healthcare services, a person-centered approach that adapts and adopts the ICOPE framework could provide tailored interventions.

Findings indicate that locomotion is the most commonly affected domain [9], and that IC decline is independently associated with increased risks of frailty, disability, falls, fractures, and immobility [10], suggesting that physiotherapy plays a critical role in maintaining and enhancing IC among older adults. Therefore, we aimed to develop a Physiotherapy-led Person-Centered Integrated Care for Older People (PTICOPE) program and evaluate its effectiveness in improving IC among older adults living in the community. We hypothesized that older adults participating in the PTICOPE program would experience significant improvements in their IC domain scores, including mobility, vitality, psychological function, cognitive function, hearing, and vision, compared with the control group. This community-based program is expected to empower older adults to achieve greater independence, enhance their functional abilities, and improve their overall well-being. Additionally, it provides guidelines for physiotherapists and other healthcare professionals working with community-dwelling older adults to regularly screen IC and monitor outcomes effectively.

Methods

Study design

This study is a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group approach with a 1:1 allocation, randomly assigning participants to either the intervention or control group. The study is consistent with the guidelines of Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Trials (SPIRIT) (Fig 1). The protocol follows the CONSORT flowchart, outlining participant progression through the randomized controlled trial, with follow-ups scheduled at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 following the initial baseline assessment (Fig 2). Participants are informed of their assigned group. The recruitment of participants for this study has not yet commenced. Recruitment is expected to start after completing the validation of the PTICOPE module, however, it is anticipated that the recruitment start date is in February 2025 and will end in August 2025.

Fig 1. SPRIT schedule for enrollment.

Fig 1

Fig 2. The CONSORT flow diagram.

Fig 2

Study settings

The study will be conducted at three community-based centers for older adults, also known as Pusat Aktiviti Warga Emas (PAWE), specifically in the districts of Sg Petani, Yan, and Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia. These centers were selected as they provide basic facilities that allow sufficient space for physical and social activities for community-dwelling older adults. Furthermore, these centers have a large number of registered older adults, around 200 to 300 members for each center, who have similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.

Participants

Community-dwelling older adults registered with PAWE will be invited to participate in the study. Most PAWE members are independent in activities of daily living and have controlled comorbidities. The inclusion criteria for participants are as follows: (1) aged 60 to 75 years; (2) able to walk independently or with partial assistance from an assistive device; (3) manageable comorbidities, as evidenced by their ability to participate in PAWE activities; (4) able to understand and communicate in either Bahasa Malaysia or English; and (5) willing to participate in the study. The exclusion criteria are: (1) uncontrolled comorbidities, such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disorders, or severe joint conditions; (2) Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease; and (3) blindness or deafness.

Sample size determination

The sample size was calculated using G* Power 3 software for a repeated measures ANOVA (Baseline, week 4, week 8, week 12 measurements), aiming for a statistical power of 90%, an alpha level of 0.05, an estimated medium effect size (0.25), and a standard deviation of 2.5 for the primary outcomes and a correlation among repeated measures of 0.5. The selection of these parameters was guided by a previous study examining multicomponent exercise interventions in older adults to enhance, which reported a meaningful change of 1 point in the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) as a clinically significant threshold [14].

Based on the initial analysis, a minimum of 60 participants is needed to detect a significant effect within each group. To account for potential attrition, such as participant dropouts due to withdrawal, health issues, or other factors, about 15 to 20% increase was applied. This adjustment results in a target sample size of 70 participants, divided equally into two groups (35 per group) to ensure the study maintains sufficient power to detect meaningful differences in IC changes between the intervention and control groups.

Randomization and allocation concealment

Participants will be randomly assigned to intervention and control groups using computer-generated randomization (http://www.randomizer.org/). A research assistant will handle the preparation of the envelopes by placing a carbon paper on top of the allocation paper, inserting both into a foil wrapper, and sealing them inside an envelope. Each envelope will be signed across the seal for authenticity. A total of 70 envelopes will be prepared with 35 allocated for the intervention group and 35 for the control group. Each envelope will be manually labelled as either “intervention” (1) or “control” (0). Once prepared, all 70 envelopes will be thoroughly shuffled to ensure randomness. A unique number sequentially from 1 to 70 will then be marked on the front of each envelope using a pen. The carbon paper inside will transfer this number onto the allocation paper. Finally, the envelopes will be placed in a plastic container in numerical order and ready to be used for the group allocation. After recruiting a participant, the research assistant will sequentially open an envelope, with the number inside indicating the participant’s group assignment. In this study, neither the participants nor the research assistants will be blinded to group assignments; however, the data collector will be blinded to group assignments to minimize measurement bias.

Intervention

Development of PTICOPE module.

The development process of the PTICOPE module includes two main steps: (1) creating the PTICOPE module based on the WHO-ICOPE guidelines and evidence gathered, and (2) validating the module through content validation (with experts) and face validation (with older adult participants). This approach is designed to enhance IC in older adults through a tailored, person-centered framework. Initially, data from literature and systematic reviews are gathered to identify factors and interventions related to IC decline. We also adopt the construct of the Health Belief Model (HBM) to guide the development of the module as shown in Table 1. The HBM recognizes and addresses the social context in which health behaviours take place that can be incorporated into the PTICOPE intervention to increase knowledge of health challenges, enhance perceptions of personal risk, encourage actions to reduce or eliminate the risk, and, eventually enhance the sense of self-efficacy to continue changing [15,16].

Table 1. The application of the health belief model in the PTICOPE module.
HBM Constructs Features of PTICOPE
Perceived Susceptibility and Severity Participants will be educated about the importance of intrinsic capacity (IC) and how its decline can impact activities of daily living, independence, well-being, and quality of life. The participants will be informed of their assessment findings to help them recognize their vulnerability to IC decline. 
Perceived Benefits The participants will be informed about the benefits of the PTICOPE intervention in enhancing the IC domains, not only through the exercises and healthy diet but also the indirect effects of seeking personalized care from other healthcare disciplines. In the long run, these practices can prevent disability, promote independence, and support active aging.
Perceived Barriers Through ongoing monitoring of the PTICOPE intervention via WhatsApp and face-to-face meetings, the researchers and participants will address the potential barriers that limit their adherence to exercise and dietary advice. Through discussion between the researchers and participants, guidance and ways can be suggested to overcome the barriers.
Cues to Action The researchers will remind the participants regularly to continue achieving and revising the goals that they have agreed to at the beginning of the intervention.
Self-Efficacy The elements of the PTICOPE module include strategies for managing health and enhancing IC through goal-setting, and feedback from the researchers. The researchers will use techniques such as demonstration and positive reinforcement during the weekly meeting and communication through WhatsApp. Positive reinforcements from the researchers may build the confidence of the participants to continue following the recommended activities in the PTICOPE module.

The contents of the PTICOPE workbook will be tailored to the Malaysian context by aligning with the intervention and management suggested by WHO-ICOPE (Table 2), featuring contents that are educational, culturally relevant, practical exercises with self-tracking tools to support older adults’ intrinsic capacity and ease of understanding. The input from experts, among other include physiotherapists, geriatricians, psychologists, occupational therapists, dieticians, and input from practitioners and educationists in the validation process ensure collaborative efforts from several healthcare disciplines that can address all aspects of aged-care. The workbook is designed with interactive features like visual aids and graphic instructions to enhance participants’ engagement, making the workbook an effective and user-friendly tool for older adults.

Table 2. Contents of the PTICOPE module.
Intrinsic Capacity Domain Activities/Interventions Advice Goal Setting
Locomotor
  • Balance exercises (e.g., tai chi, single-leg stands) three times weekly.

  • Strength exercises using resistance bands.

  • Flexibility exercises like stretching or yoga.

Encourage daily low-impact physical activities like walking at moderate intensity.
Recommend supportive footwear and safety modifications (e.g., handrails).
Weekly mobility goals tailored to ability levels, such as aiming for 10-15 minutes of walking daily, gradually increasing time and intensity.
Vitality
  • Nutritional guidance with a focus on protein intake, hydration, and key vitamins

  • Monthly meal planning assistance.

  • Weekly hydration reminders.

Recommend balanced meals with lean protein, vegetables, and hydration goal (e.g., 8 glasses daily).
Provide strategies for appetite stimulation if needed.
Daily dietary and hydration goals; track nutritional intake using a simple chart or apps.
Psychological
  • Mindfulness practices (e.g., breathing exercises, meditation).

  • Stress-reduction techniques such as guided imagery.

  • Weekly community engagement activities (e.g., group walks).

Recommend social interactions, like weekly calls or outings with family/friends.
Encourage hobbies that provide cognitive engagement (e.g., gardening, reading).
Set personal well-being goals such as attending a social event weekly or completing a relaxation activity daily.
Cognitive
  • Memory exercises (e.g., word games, memory matching).

  • Problem-solving tasks (e.g., puzzles, strategy games).

  • Use of cognitive apps like Lumosity for 10-15 minutes daily.

Recommend engagement in cognitive activities (e.g., puzzles) for mental stimulation.
Encourage reading or learning a new skill.
Set weekly cognitive goals (e.g., complete a puzzle or read a chapter daily).
Hearing
  • Whisper test or audiometry screening annually.

  • Environmental adjustments (e.g., using hearing aids, minimizing background noise).

Advise on ear care (e.g., avoid loud environments, use ear protection if needed).
Encourage social support for improved communication.
Aim to maintain current auditory health or improve understanding with assistive devices.
Set quarterly hearing check-ins.
Vision
  • Vision exercises to reduce eye strain.

  • Regular eye exams (annually).

  • Home environment adjustments (e.g., improve lighting).

Recommend eye protection (e.g., sunglasses outdoors).
Suggest routine visual health monitoring, such as checking for blurriness.
Set visual health goals (e.g., reduce screen time, follow up on eye examinations).

Moreover, the contents of the module are also aligned with WHO’s 13 ICOPE recommendations, which are customized to meet the specific needs of older adults in the respective settings [12]. Table 2 outlines the proposed contents of the PTICOPE module.

Validation of the PTICOPE module.

The validation of PTICOPE includes a thorough content validation phase involving 12 multidisciplinary healthcare experts, representing fields such as occupational therapy, physiotherapy, geriatrics, family medicine, public health, nutrition, dietetics, audiology, psychology, and academia. Each expert receives an invitation along with an information sheet and consent form. Upon agreeing to participate, they are provided with the PTICOPE module (workbook) and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P), a 26-item form for evaluating printed educational materials [17]. Experts will have at least two weeks to submit their feedback, after which researchers will revise the module. This process will continue iteratively until no further changes are required.

Following content validation, the finalized PTICOPE module will undergo face validation with a sample of community-dwelling older adult participants. Ten individuals from the target population, who will not participate in the study, will review the module for clarity, relevance, and ease of use. These participants will receive an invitation, including an information sheet and consent form. A group meeting will be held in a meeting room at one of the PAWE centers, where researchers will present the PTICOPE module, focusing on participants’ understanding, visual appeal, and acceptability of the intervention tasks. Two research assistants will document feedback during the session, which will be audio-recorded for accuracy. This feedback will inform final refinements to the workbook, preparing it for testing.

The intervention group.

Participants in the intervention group will undergo the PTICOPE intervention for 12 weeks (Table 2). Meetings will be held once a week for the first 4 weeks. During the initial meeting, participants will receive guidance on how to use the workbook, be informed of their baseline measurement outcomes to help strategize their care pathway, set personal goals, learn the exercises outlined in the workbook, and have the opportunity to ask any questions about the intervention. Participants are encouraged to contact the researchers via WhatsApp at any time throughout the week for further clarification regarding the intervention.

In the following 3 weekly meetings, to be held at the same locations, researchers will check that the workbook is being used correctly, ensure that exercises are performed according to the established goals, and address any additional concerns. After these four meetings, the first follow-up measurement will be conducted, with participants informed of their results to assist them in revising their personal goals as needed. The second and third follow-ups will continue as scheduled, with participants reminded of their appointments at the centers for further outcome measurements.

The control group.

Participants in the control group will receive a one-time session on IC information, including health education on the importance of exercise, a healthy diet, and self-care management. The control group will not receive the PTICOPE booklet. During the first meeting, the participants in the control group will be informed of a series of monitoring and measurement of outcomes (weeks 4, 8, and 12). A WhatsApp reminder will be sent to their mobile phone to inform them regarding the timing of the follow-up

Outcome measures

Primary outcomes.

The repeated measures of the six domains of IC (cognitive decline, limited mobility [locomotor], malnutrition [Vitality], visual impairment, hearing loss, and depressive symptoms) are the primary outcomes of this study. These outcomes will be assessed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, and 12, using the WHO ICOPE screening tool. The ICOPE screening tool is a sensitive instrument to detect IC among community-dwelling older adults that does not require a substantial workforce [18]. It is used as the first step in each care pathway that covers all six core domains of IC to identify declines in IC across the six domains [19]. The psychometric properties of the ICOPE screening tools to assess IC domains among older persons from different settings have been reported in a few studies [2022]. However, a systematic review found that the methods for assessing each of the IC domains differ substantially across studies and there is no consensus on the best method to compute an eventual global compound score to evaluate IC [23]. On the other hand, further improvements are needed in the vitality dimension of the ICOPE screening tool to enhance its sensitivity in identifying individuals at risk of malnutrition [24]. Hence, for this study, some measures of outcomes for the IC domains will be based on those validated in the Malaysian population.

We will use the validated Malay version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) to measure cognitive function [25]. This tool includes items on orientation (5 points), registration (3 points), attention and calculation (5 points), recall (3 points), and language (9 points), with a maximum score of 30. A higher MMSE score indicates better cognitive function.

To assess locomotor or mobility function, we will use the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) [26,27]. The SPPB comprises three components: gait speed (measured over 4 meters), lower limb strength (five-repetition chair rise), and static balance (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem stands), with each component contributing up to 4 points. The total SPPB score ranges from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating better locomotion.

For vitality assessment in the ICOPE screening tool, we will use questions on unintended weight loss of more than 3 kg in the past three months and appetite loss. This study will employ the validated Malay version of the short-form Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) [28]. The MNA has a maximum score of 14, with higher scores indicating better nutritional status.

For hearing and vision assessments, we will follow previously reported procedures, using self-reported hearing and vision impairment [29]. Participants will be categorized as having total or severe loss (0 points), moderate loss (0.5 points), or normal to mild loss (1 point).

Psychological function, as indicated by depression level, will be assessed using the validated Malay short-form Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) [30]. This scale consists of 15 items with “Yes” (1 point) and “No” (0 point) responses; a higher score indicates a greater level of depression.

Secondary outcomes.

For the secondary outcomes, we will gather data on instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and quality of life (QoL) to gain further insights into the participants’ overall well-being throughout the intervention. These secondary outcomes will be measured at both baseline and 12 weeks following the intervention. IADL will be assessed using the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, which evaluates independence in various functions like managing finances, taking medications, and handling transportation (Lawton & Brody, 1969).

To assess quality of life, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire will be administered, a widely used tool for evaluating health-related QoL [31]. This tool has two parts: a descriptive system where participants rate aspects such as mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression on a scale from ‘no problems’ to ‘extreme problems.’ The second part, the EQ Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS), allows participants to indicate their general health on a vertical scale, ranging from ‘The best health you can imagine’ to ‘The worst health you can imagine.

Data collection and monitoring

Data collection and monitoring of participants’ progress will be conducted by trained research assistants who are physiotherapy students or qualified physiotherapists. While the delivery of the intervention will be done by the main researchers (First and third author) assisted by the research assistants. Before participant recruitment, to ensure consistency across different settings, the research assistants will undergo thorough training, including understanding the protocol of the PTICOPE and hands-on practice with all outcomes measures for measuring the IC, guiding participants through tailored exercises, and providing education on self-management strategies. The research assistants will also monitor progress, adjust interventions to individual needs with guidance from the main researchers.

Recruitment of study participants will be conducted at three PAWE after obtaining research ethics approval and permission from the person in charge of the centers. The researchers will invite all participants who are members of the PAWE via letter of invitation, flyers, and verbal invitations. Those who volunteer to participate will be invited to a briefing session to inform the purpose and procedure of the study. Participants who provided informed consent and fulfilled the inclusion criteria will undergo the 12-week RCT. All participants will undergo an evaluation of the sociodemographic data, and primary and secondary outcomes at baseline. Evaluation of primary outcomes will be repeated at week 4, week 8, and week 12. Evaluation of secondary outcomes will be repeated at week 12. Once baseline data has been collected, participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. The intervention group will receive the PTICOPE module in the form of a workbook and include comprehensive guidance on its use to support IC. In contrast, the control group will receive general information on the importance of maintaining IC, along with health education on the importance of exercise, and healthy diet, and self-care management which include recommendations to seek relevant healthcare services based on their baseline IC measurements.

Data analysis

All statistical analyses will be conducted using SPSS version 29, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Data will first undergo cleaning and analysis in SPSS, where frequency distributions and graphical representations will be used to identify outliers and missing values. For normality testing of interval data, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests will be applied. Descriptive analysis will be conducted for participants’ demographics and baseline characteristics to describe data using tables, averages, standard deviations, ranges, frequencies, and percentages. Where appropriate, statistical comparisons between the intervention and control groups will be conducted, utilizing the independent t-test for continuous data and the Chi-square test for categorical data.

To evaluate the intervention’s impact on the primary outcomes, a repeated measures ANOVA will be conducted after data collection, as the primary outcomes involve measurements at baseline, week 4, week 8 and week 12, to evaluate the significant effects of time, intervention, and their interaction. For the secondary outcomes which involve measurements at baseline and week 12, the paired-t-test will be performed to determine the impact of the intervention.

The non-parametric tests will be performed if the main outcomes are not normally distributed that include the Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed-ranked test for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.

In the event of missing data due to participant dropout or incomplete data collection, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis will be employed to maintain the validity of the randomization process. Missing data will be managed using appropriate imputation techniques, depending on its nature and extent. For continuous variables, multiple imputation methods will be applied, while for categorical variables, methods such as last observation carried forward (LOCF) may be used. Sensitivity analyses will also be performed to assess the robustness of the results to the assumptions about the missing data.

To ensure data privacy and confidentiality, hard-copy forms collected from participants will be stored securely. All datasets will be digitized and saved on password-protected laptops, with backup copies maintained on password-protected USB drives and external hard drives. Access to these datasets is restricted to the principal researcher.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was obtained from the UiTM Research Ethics Committee (REC/09/2024 (PG/MR/437)), and this study is registered as a clinical trial in the Thai Clinical Trial Registry TCTR20241029007) (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20241029007). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants, ensuring their privacy and right to withdraw at any time.

This study will adhere to ethical standards throughout all procedures. During participant recruitment, trained research assistants will meet with potential participants to explain the study’s purpose, procedures, benefits, potential risks, and participants’ right to withdraw at any time without consequences. Participants will have sufficient time to discuss any questions before signing the consent form. All data collected will be stored centrally, kept confidential, and anonymized. Data analysis will be conducted by the research team and used solely for study purposes within the research team.

Study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference, such as the Asian Conference for Frailty and Sarcopenia, held annually in the region. The findings will support the proposal of a new physiotherapy approach based on PTICOPE for community-dwelling older adults.

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate the PTICOPE module, a Physiotherapy-led, WHO-ICOPE-based, person-centered integrated care program specifically tailored for older adults in Malaysia. This module aims to enhance intrinsic capacity across six key domains, namely, locomotor, vitality, psychological, cognitive, vision, and hearing, addressing unique cultural and healthcare access challenges faced by Malaysian older adults. By incorporating comprehensive exercises, goal-setting, advice, and regular monitoring, the PTICOPE module seeks to empower older adults to maintain and improve functional abilities and overall well-being within a community-based setting, thereby contributing to improved quality of life and reduced healthcare burden among the aging population.

The current PTICOPE module which is led by physiotherapists may be different from those that have been published such as the AMICOPE [12], INSPIRE ICOPE-CARE [13], and VIVIFRAIL [14], that were conducted in Spain, France, and tertiary hospitals in Spain, respectively. These differences in terms of language, socioeconomic factors, diet, lifestyles, and healthcare policy highlight the need to design specific interventions for integrated care to older adults. As far as we know, this is the first study using the constructs of the HBM to develop the features of the PTICOPE module. The applicability of the HBM constructs has been evident in several studies involving older persons with different conditions [32,33]. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this application in the current study is yet to be ascertained once the study is completed. We also anticipate several challenges in the application of the HBM in the older population due to variations in their physical and psychological well-being.

It is also pertinent that the development of intervention to enhance IC is acceptable by the local community as one template may not apply to all due to the diverse world population of aging. This is evidenced by IC studies reported in several countries. For instance, a study reported in China and Japan revealed that IC decline is associated with social fragility and not modifiable factors [34]. In contrast, another study in China found poor self-rated health, multiple chronic conditions, recent falls, frequent physical pain, recent outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and pessimistic life expectancy were highly associated with IC decline [35]. While, a study conducted in India found age, gender, and smoking were related to IC decline [36]. These findings indicate that factors contributing to IC decline may differ across countries probably due to diversity in socioeconomic status, cultural norms, and healthcare policy, hence, may require different approaches in the personalized and integrated care pathways.

The development of the PTICOPE ensures a comprehensive review from expert panels who have at least 5 years of working experience with older adults, ensuring a strong understanding of the needs of older adults. Furthermore, older adults are also involved in the development of the module, in the face validation stage, to ensure that the module is acceptable to the study participants and effective in enhancing the well-being of the study participants.

Strengths of the study

We would like to highlight several strengths of this proposed study. First, we will ensure that the development of the PTICOPE module involves expert review from all disciplines involved in or relevant to the care of older adults, including experienced physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and geriatricians, among others. The module’s development is based on the WHO framework and current literature, followed by content and face validation to ensure it effectively covers all aspects of IC.

Limitations and considerations

Several limitations should be noted in this study. First, this study will be conducted in a single state in the northern region of Malaysia, where the predominant members of PAWE are of Malay ethnicity. This limitation may restrict the generalization of the findings to other states in Malaysia. However, given Malaysia’s diversity in culture, ethnicity, and healthcare infrastructure, this limitation is unavoidable. We suggest that each state may need to adapt the proposed module for local suitability.

The second anticipated limitation could be related to participant adherence to the module’s activities. Older adults may experience challenges such as hearing or vision impairments that could impact their understanding and adherence to the study protocol. To address this, we will contact each participant weekly to remind them of their roles and set goals as outlined in the module.

Thirdly, although we have calculated the sample size based on a recommended formula, older adults may still have the potential to withdraw from the study due to multiple declines in IC domains, as noted in the literature. We hope that weekly mobile phone reminders will help reduce the attrition rate and encourage participants to stay motivated in achieving their goals and caring for themselves.

Fourthly, there are possible bias in self-reported answers, the study will use trusted and proven tools, keep participants’ identities private, and ask questions in a neutral way to encourage honest responses. Combining this data with other sources like interviews or observations will make the results more reliable, and using simple, clear language will help avoid confusion.

Fifthly, there may be a long-term challenge in ensuring participants compliance to the interventions and data collection. To mitigate this potential issue, the researchers will keep in touch with participants through updates and reminders via phone calls and WhatsApp mode. The participants will be ensured of flexible schedules, simple processes, and appreciation for encouraging and motivating their involvement.

The participants fidelity and acceptability of the intervention will be ensured by regularly asking the understanding of the participants towards the PTICOPE module, regularly tracking their completed task, and gathering feedback during the follow-up sessions. Participants will be informed of their performance and goal-achievement that should be consistent with their exercise recording table during follow-ups to continue motivating them and strive for a better results and satisfaction.

Future research directions

Future studies should involve multiple states in Malaysia to encompass the country’s diverse population and culture, enhancing the generalizability of the PTICOPE module. Further research is also recommended to extend this approach longitudinally, allowing assessment of its sustainability, long-term acceptance among participants, and adherence to newly introduced self-care practices. Additionally, similar modules could be tested in different settings, such as government-funded primary care clinics.

Conclusions

The newly developed PTICOPE module, delivered by physiotherapists with multidisciplinary input, is anticipated to have great potential for enhancing the intrinsic capacity of older adults living in the community. The PTICOPE’s uniqueness and culturally tailored features may empower a person-centered approach, enabling older adults to better manage their physical and psychological well-being, resulting in an improved quality of life, greater independence, and reduced caregiver and healthcare system burdens. For future work, we plan to adapt the PTICOPE module for remote or digital formats to expand its reach and accessibility, especially for underserved or rural communities.

Supporting information

S1 File. Trial registration.

(PDF)

pone.0318513.s001.pdf (58.5KB, pdf)
S2 File. Study protocol.

(PDF)

pone.0318513.s002.pdf (653.3KB, pdf)
S3 File. SPIRIT fillable checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0318513.s003.pdf (117KB, pdf)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Cao X, Yi X, Chen H, Tian Y, Li S, Zhou J. Prevalence of intrinsic capacity decline among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2024;36(1):157. doi: 10.1007/s40520-024-02816-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhou Y, Ma L. Intrinsic capacity in older adults: recent advances. Aging Dis. 2022;13(2):353–9. doi: 10.14336/AD.2021.0818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization. World Report on Ageing and Health [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565042 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Franceschi C, Garagnani P, Morsiani C, Conte M, Santoro A, Grignolio A, et al. The continuum of aging and age-related diseases: common mechanisms but different rates. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:61. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tonetti MS, Bottenberg P, Conrads G, Eickholz P, Heasman P, Huysmans M-C, et al. Dental caries and periodontal diseases in the ageing population: call to action to protect and enhance oral health and well-being as an essential component of healthy ageing - Consensus report of group 4 of the joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol. 2017;44 Suppl 18:S135–44. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12681 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ma L, Chhetri JK, Zhang L, Sun F, Li Y, Tang Z. Cross-sectional study examining the status of intrinsic capacity decline in community-dwelling older adults in China: prevalence, associated factors and implications for clinical care. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e043062. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liu Y, Du Q, Jiang Y. Detection rate of decreased intrinsic capacity of older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2023;35(10):2009–17. doi: 10.1007/s40520-023-02515-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rarajam Rao A, Waris M, Saini M, Thakral M, Hegde K, Bhagwasia M, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with impairment in intrinsic capacity among community-dwelling older adults: an observational study from South India. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2023;2023:4386415. doi: 10.1155/2023/4386415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jayaraj V, Gnanasekaran S, Yazhini VB, Selvam MP, Rajendran N, Dutta G, et al. Estimating the prevalence of intrinsic capacity decline: A systematic review and meta-analysis using WHO’s integrated care of older people (ICOPE) screening tool. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus. 2024;1(3):100032. doi: 10.1016/j.aggp.2024.100032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ma L, Chhetri JK, Zhang L, Sun F, Li Y, Tang Z. Cross-sectional study examining the status of intrinsic capacity decline in community-dwelling older adults in China: prevalence, associated factors and implications for clinical care. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e043062. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.WHO. Integrated care for older people: guidelines on community-level interventions to manage declines in intrinsic capacity [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Blancafort Alias S, Cuevas-Lara C, Martínez-Velilla N, Zambom-Ferraresi F, Soto ME, Tavassoli N, et al. A multi-domain group-based intervention to promote physical activity, healthy nutrition, and psychological wellbeing in older people with losses in intrinsic capacity: AMICOPE development study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11):5979. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tavassoli N, de Souto Barreto P, Berbon C, Mathieu C, de Kerimel J, Lafont C, et al. Implementation of the WHO integrated care for older people (ICOPE) programme in clinical practice: a prospective study. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3(6):e394–404. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00097-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Casas-Herrero Á, Sáez de Asteasu ML, Antón-Rodrigo I, Sánchez-Sánchez JL, Montero-Odasso M, Marín-Epelde I, et al. Effects of Vivifrail multicomponent intervention on functional capacity: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13(2):884–93. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12925 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Champion V, Skinner C. The health belief model. Health Behav Health Educ Theory Res Pract. 2008;4:45–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Green E, Murphy E, Gryboski K. The health belief model. Wiley Encyclopedia of Health Psychology. 2020;1:211–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and User’s Guide: PEMAT for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P) [Internet]. Available from: https://ahrq-stage.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/patient-education/pemat-p.html [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Leung AYM, Su JJ, Lee ESH, Fung JTS, Molassiotis A. Intrinsic capacity of older people in the community using WHO Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) framework: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):304. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-02980-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.World Health Organization. Integrated care for older people (ICOPE): Guidance for person-centred assessment and pathways in primary care [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-FWC-ALC-19.1. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rodríguez-Laso Á, García-García FJ, Rodríguez-Mañas L. The ICOPE intrinsic capacity screening tool: measurement structure and predictive validity of dependence and hospitalization. J Nutr Health Aging. 2023;27(10):808–16. doi: 10.1007/s12603-023-1985-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rojano I Luque X, Blancafort-Alias S, Prat Casanovas S, Forné S, Martín Vergara N, Fabregat Povill P, et al. Identification of decreased intrinsic capacity: performance of diagnostic measures of the ICOPE Screening tool in community dwelling older people in the VIMCI study. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-03799-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Su H-C, Liu C-H, Chen H-Y, Wu Y-L, Griffiths MD, Li C-Y, et al. Assessing intrinsic capacity in Taiwan: initial psychometric properties of the Integrated Care for Older People Screening Tool for Taiwanese (ICOPES-TW). BMC Geriatr. 2024;24(1):477. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05071-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.López-Ortiz S, Lista S, Peñín-Grandes S, Pinto-Fraga J, Valenzuela PL, Nisticò R, et al. Defining and assessing intrinsic capacity in older people: a systematic review and a proposed scoring system. Ageing Res Rev. 2022;79:101640. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101640 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lu F, Li J, Liu X, Liu S, Sun X, Wang X. Diagnostic performance analysis of the Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) screening tool for identifying decline in intrinsic capacity. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23(1):509. doi: 10.1186/s12877-023-04180-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ibrahim NM, Shohaimi S, Chong H-T, Rahman AHA, Razali R, Esther E, et al. Validation study of the Mini-Mental State Examination in a Malay-speaking elderly population in Malaysia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2009;27(3):247–53. doi: 10.1159/000203888 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cavanaugh EJ, Richardson J, McCallum CA, Wilhelm M. The predictive validity of physical performance measures in determining markers of preclinical disability in community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2018;98(12):1010–21. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzy109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Welch SA, Ward RE, Beauchamp MK, Leveille SG, Travison T, Bean JF. The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB): a quick and useful tool for fall risk stratification among older primary care patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(8):1646–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.09.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Suzana S Jr, Siti Saifa H. Validation of nutritional screening tools against anthropometric and functional assessments among elderly people in selangor. Malays J Nutr. 2007;13(1):29–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shen S, Xie Y, Zeng X, Chen L, Guan H, Yang Y, et al. Associations of intrinsic capacity, fall risk and frailty in old inpatients. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1177812. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1177812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nikmat AW, Azhar ZI, Shuib N, Hashim NA. Psychometric properties of geriatric depression scale (Malay version) in elderly with cognitive impairment. Malays J Med Sci. 2021;28(3):97–104. doi: 10.21315/mjms2021.28.3.9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L user guide [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mohamadian H, Bazarghani A, Latifi SM, Moradgholi A. Effect of motivational interviewing on hypertension, self-care and quality of life of rural aged people: application of health belief model. J Educ Community Health. 2019;6(2):95–101. doi: 10.29252/jech.6.2.95 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Naeemi L, Daniali SS, Hassanzadeh A, Rahimi M. The effect of educational intervention on self-care behavior in hypertensive older people: Applying the health belief model. J Educ Health Promot. 2022;11:406. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1800_21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Huang CH, Okada K, Matsushita E, Uno C, Satake S, Martins BA, et al. The association of social frailty with intrinsic capacity in community-dwelling older adults: a prospective cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):515. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02466-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fang Y, Wang R, Qing Y, Zou G, Zhang C. Declined intrinsic capacity and its influencing factors among older adults in China: a national cross-sectional survey. BMC Geriatr. 2024. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4746825/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Muneera K, Muhammad T, Althaf S. Socio-demographic and lifestyle factors associated with intrinsic capacity among older adults: evidence from India. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):851. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-03558-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yogesh Kumar Jain

20 Dec 2024

PONE-D-24-52840Development and evaluation of a Physiotherapy-led, WHO-ICOPE-Based, Person-Centered Integrated Care Program (PTICOPE) Module to enhance intrinsic capacity in older adults: Protocol for a randomized controlled trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. JUSTINE,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear Authors,The manuscript has received an overall positive feedback from the reviewers, however, some necessary changes are suggested by them to improve the overall readability as well as significance of the conveyed results. Please make the modifications as suggested by both the reviewers and resubmit for further consideration.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yogesh Kumar Jain, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition ).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. We note that the original protocol that you have uploaded as a Supporting Information file contains an institutional logo. As this logo is likely copyrighted, we ask that you please remove it from this file and upload an updated version upon resubmission.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present the framework for their proposed study of the PITCOPE module. They appropriately describe the question of interest, the planned PITCOPE procedure, how participants will be recruited, and what metrics will be assessed when on each participant.

What is lacking a bit is more detailed information for the sample size calculations. Why was a paired t-test used (when the primary outcome mentions 4 time points, so a repeated measures ANOVA might be more appropriate). Additionally, what is the estimated means/standard deviations or effect size used for the calculation of the needed sample size? These are important values to include for reproducibility purposes. It is also important to include what material were used to inform the values used for the means/st devs and/or the effect size.

The randomization method also needs attention. As written, it is very unclear how the value of 0 or 1 that gets put into the envelope will be determined. It seems that a sheet with 70 0's and 70 1's (70 sets of numbers) will be created. From there, envelopes will only have one of these numbers. It a simple coin flip method is used (simple randomization), it is unclear how equal sample sizes in each treatment group will be achieved. A more detailed description of the exact method of randomization is needed, and the method used should mention how the end result will be an equal number of subjects in each intervention arm.

For the data analysis section, the authors mention that the data will be checked for normality with appropriate tests. However, there is no mention as to what will happen if the data is found to be not normally distributed. Will data transformations be performed? Will alternate methods be used (Wilcoxon signed rank)? These items should be mentioned in the text as potential alternatives.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents a well-designed protocol for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a Physiotherapy-led Person-Centered Integrated Care for Older People (PTICOPE) module in enhancing intrinsic capacity among older adults in Malaysia. Here are the key points addressing the review questions:

1. The manuscript provides a valid rationale with clearly identified research questions. The study aims to address the prevalent issue of declining intrinsic capacity in older adults, which impacts their independence and quality of life.

2. The protocol is technically sound and planned to lead to meaningful outcomes. It employs a 12-week, multicenter, randomized controlled trial design with clear intervention and control groups, comprehensive outcome measures, and appropriate statistical analysis methods.

3. The methodology is feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow replication. The protocol outlines participant recruitment, randomization, intervention details, outcome measures, and data analysis plans.

4. The authors have stated that all relevant data from the study will be made available upon study completion.

5. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English, with a logical structure and clear language.

Comments for the authors:

• Consider providing more details on the PTICOPE module workbook content and how it will be developed based on the WHO-ICOPE framework.

• Clarify the specific roles of physiotherapists in delivering the intervention and how they will be trained to ensure consistency across centers.

• Discuss potential limitations of the study and how they will be addressed, such as potential bias in self-reported measures or challenges in long-term follow-up.

• Consider including a plan for process evaluation to assess the implementation fidelity and acceptability of the PTICOPE module.

• Provide more information on how the sample size of 70 participants was determined and whether it is sufficient to detect clinically meaningful differences between groups.

Overall, the protocol is well-designed and has the potential to contribute valuable insights into enhancing intrinsic capacity among older adults. Addressing these minor points will further strengthen the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  RICHARD AMOAKO

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Mar 19;20(3):e0318513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318513.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Jan 2025

Dear Professor Yogesh,

(Academic Editor)

Thank you for your constructive feedback to our manuscript entitled "Development and evaluation of a Physiotherapy-led, WHO-ICOPE-Based, Person-Centered Integrated Care Program (PTICOPE) Module to enhance intrinsic capacity in older adults: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial" to PLOS ONE Journal.

We are glad to receive insightful feedback from you and the reviewers who had spent time and effort to provide the comments for improvement. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have provided. We also hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted.

To facilitate your review of our revisions, we have provided the point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your mail dated last 20th December 2024. Please see the followings:

i. Table 1: Responses to the Editorial

ii. Table 2: Responses to Reviewer 1

iii. Table 3: Responses to Reviewer 2

All amendment/changes are indicated in tracked changes, in red colours, as shown in the manuscript.

Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to make the amendment based on the valuable comments from the reviewers. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to consider accepting our manuscript for publication.

Best Regards,

Maria Justine

(Corresponding Author)

UiTM Puncak Alam Campus

Centre for Physiotherapy Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA ,Selangor, Puncak Alam Campus, Puncak Alam, Selangor Malaysia

Email: maria205@uitm.edu.my

Table 1. Responses to the Editorial

Editorial/Journal Requirements Authors’ Responses

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at the link provided in mail.

We have named all necessary file according to the PLOS ONE’s requirements.

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods.

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

- Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used

in the reported study.

- If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting

Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the

relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended.

Thank you for highlighting this.

As for now we do not have any data yet, as data collection has not started.

We have written the following in the submission system:

Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.

3. We note that the original protocol that you have uploaded as a Supporting Information

file contains an institutional logo. As this logo is likely copyrighted, we ask that you

please remove it from this file and upload an updated version upon resubmission

We have removed the institutional logo and resubmit the study protocol without the logo.

Table 2. Responses to Reviewer 1

NO COMMENTS RESPONSE

1 The authors present the framework for their proposed study of the PITCOPE module. They appropriately describe the question of interest, the planned PITCOPE procedure, how participants will be recruited, and what metrics will be assessed when on each participant. Thank you for the thoughts. We hope and really appreciate your valuable inputs to improving the manuscript and hence, be accepted for publication.

We have amended and improved the manuscript to the best of our capacity. The point-by-point amendments followed subsequently.

2 What is lacking a bit is more detailed information for the sample size calculations. Additionally, what is the estimated means/standard deviations or effect size used for the calculation of the needed sample size? These are important values to include for reproducibility purposes. It is also important to include what material were used to inform the values used for the means/st devs and/or the effect size.

• Thank you for your valuable suggestions to relook the sample size calculation.

• Consistent with another review, we have provided more details on the sample size calculation by mentioning estimated effect size and other parameters.

• See, Sample size determination – 1st paragraph.

3 Why was a paired t-test used (when the primary outcome mentions 4 time points, so a repeated measures ANOVA might be more appropriate)

• Thank you for your suggestion. You're right that repeated measures ANOVA may suit the analysis with four time points better.

• Amendment been made in data analysis section by changing the analysis for primary outcome. We will use repeated measure ANOVA since there are 4 time points of data collection (1st, 4th, 8th, and 12th weeks) while secondary outcome remains the same with paired t-test since there are only 2 time point of data collection which is first week (pre) and final week (post).

• See, Data Analysis – 2nd paragraph.

4 For the data analysis section, the authors mention that the data will be checked for normality with appropriate tests. However, there is no mention as to what will happen if the data is found to be not normally distributed. Will data transformations be performed? Will alternate methods be used (Wilcoxon signed rank)? These items should be mentioned in the text as potential alternatives

• We are sorry for missing this point.

• We have mentioned the non-paramettric tests in within the data analysis.

• See, Data Analysis – 3rd paragraph

5 The randomization method also needs attention. As written, it is very unclear how the value of 0 or 1 that gets put into the envelope will be determined. It seems that a sheet with 70 0's and 70 1's (70 sets of numbers) will be created. From there, envelopes will only have one of these numbers. It a simple coin flip method is used (simple randomization), it is unclear how equal sample sizes in each treatment group will be achieved. A more detailed description of the exact method of randomization is needed, and the method used should mention how the end result will be an equal number of subjects in each intervention arm

• Thank you for the constructive input regarding the randomization procedure.

• We have improved the explanation for the procedure for the randomization. I hope this time the explanation is clear and may be replicable to others.

• See, Randomization and allocation concealment – 2nd to 5th sentences.

Table 3. Responses to Reviewer 2

NO COMMENTS RESPONSE

1 The manuscript presents a well-designed protocol for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a Physiotherapy-led Person-Centered Integrated Care for Older People (PTICOPE) module in enhancing intrinsic capacity among older adults in Malaysia. Here are the key points addressing the review questions:

1. The manuscript provides a valid rationale with clearly identified research questions. The study aims to address the prevalent issue of declining intrinsic capacity in older adults, which impacts their independence and quality of life.

2. The protocol is technically sound and planned to lead to meaningful outcomes. It employs a 12-week, multicenter, randomized controlled trial design with clear intervention and control groups, comprehensive outcome measures, and appropriate statistical analysis methods.

3. The methodology is feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow replication. The protocol outlines participant recruitment, randomization, intervention details, outcome measures, and data analysis plans.

4. The authors have stated that all relevant data from the study will be made available upon study completion.

5. The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in Standard English, with a logical structure and clear language.

-Thank you for acknowledging our manuscript as a well-designed protocol as we have worked hard to prepare it. We really appreciate your support and thoughtful feedback and are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to advancing care for older adults in Malaysia.

- We have addressed your suggestion for further improvement diligently and point-by-point as indicated below.

2 Consider providing more details on the PTICOPE module workbook content and how it will be developed based on the WHO-ICOPE framework

• Thank you for the suggestion.

• We have added another paragraph within the PTICOPE development section. The PTICOPE module workbook is designed to align with the WHO Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) framework, focusing on key domains of intrinsic capacity, such as mobility, cognition, psychological well-being, vitality, vision, and hearing. The PTICOPE is customized for the Malaysian context, the workbook includes culturally relevant content, evidence-based educational modules, practical exercises, and self-tracking tools. This statement is also supportive of Table 2.

• See, Intervention: Development of PTICOPE – 2nd paragraph

3 Clarify the specific roles of physiotherapists in delivering the intervention and how they will be trained to ensure consistency across centers.

• Thank you for highlighting the importance of clarifying the physiotherapists' roles and their training.

• Before participant recruitment, trained research assistants will be involved, and physiotherapists will deliver the PTICOPE intervention. They will assess intrinsic capacity, guide tailored exercises, provide self-management education, and monitor progress. To ensure consistency, physiotherapists will undergo training on WHO-ICOPE protocols, practical measures, and supervision.

• See, Data collection and monitoring – 1st paragraph

4 Discuss potential limitations of the study and how they will be addressed, such as potential bias in self-reported measures or challenges in long-term follow-up.

• Thank you for highlighting these important issues which we mIght have overlooked.

• These points were discussed in the limitations section as additional factors. Several measures have been proposed for consideration to address these issues effectively.

• See, Limitations and considerations – 4th and 5th paragraphs.

5 Consider including a plan for process evaluation to assess the implementation fidelity and acceptability of the PTICOPE module.

- Thank you for your suggestion to include a plan for evaluation.

• Fidelity and acceptability will be assessed by tracking participants' involvement in the activities using a table where they indicate completion by ticking off each activity.

• See, Limitations and considerations – Last paragraph

6 Provide more information on how the sample size of 70 participants was

determined and whether it is sufficient to detect clinically meaningful differences between groups

• Thank you for your insightful comment on the sample size.

• We have mentioned several parameters, including effect size, to support the calculation of the sample size.

• See, Sample size determination – 1st paragraph.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0318513.s005.docx (33.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yogesh Kumar Jain

17 Jan 2025

Development and evaluation of a Physiotherapy-led, WHO-ICOPE-Based, Person-Centered Integrated Care Program (PTICOPE) Module to enhance intrinsic capacity in older adults: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

PONE-D-24-52840R1

Dear Dr. JUSTINE,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yogesh Kumar Jain, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yogesh Jain

PONE-D-24-52840R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Justine,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yogesh Kumar Jain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Trial registration.

    (PDF)

    pone.0318513.s001.pdf (58.5KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Study protocol.

    (PDF)

    pone.0318513.s002.pdf (653.3KB, pdf)
    S3 File. SPIRIT fillable checklist.

    (PDF)

    pone.0318513.s003.pdf (117KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0318513.s005.docx (33.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES