ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2007
Validation of an instrument to measure inter-organisational linkages in general practice.
Article in International journal of integrated care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Feasibility Testing of the Clinical-Community Linkage Self-Assessment Survey for Community Organizations.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Indicators and Measurement Tools for Health Systems Integration: A Knowledge Synthesis.International journal of integrated care · 2017Article
- Evaluating intersectoral collaboration: a model for assessment by service users.International journal of integrated care · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLinkages between general medical practices and external services are important for high quality chronic disease care. The purpose of this research is to describe the development, evaluation and use of a brief tool that measures the comprehensiveness and quality of a general practice's linkages with external providers for the management of patients with chronic disease. In this study, clinical linkages are defined as the communication, support, and referral arrangements between services for the care and assistance of patients with chronic disease.
methodsAn interview to measure surgery-level (rather than individual clinician-level) clinical linkages was developed, piloted, reviewed, and evaluated with 97 Australian general practices. Two validated survey instruments were posted to patients, and a survey of locally available services was developed and posted to participating Divisions of General Practice (support organisations). Hypotheses regarding internal validity, association with local services, and patient satisfaction were tested using factor analysis, logistic regression and multilevel regression models.
resultsThe resulting General Practice Clinical Linkages Interview (GP-CLI) is a nine-item tool with three underlying factors: referral and advice linkages, shared care and care planning linkages, and community access and awareness linkages. Local availability of chronic disease services has no affect on the comprehensiveness of services with which practices link, however, comprehensiveness of clinical linkages has an association with patient assessment of access, receptionist services, and of continuity of care in their general practice.
conclusionsThe GP-CLI may be useful to researchers examining comparable health care systems for measuring the comprehensiveness and quality of linkages at a general practice-level with related services, possessing both internal and external validity. The tool can be used with large samples exploring the impact, outcomes, and facilitators of high quality clinical linkages in general practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.