Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21079525›Full record

ArticleMedical care2011

Evaluation of patient centered medical home practice transformation initiatives.

Benjamin F Crabtree, Sabrina M Chase, Christopher G Wise, Gordon D Schiff, Laura A Schmidt, Jeanette R Goyzueta, Rebecca A Malouin, Susan M C Payne, Michael T Quinn, Paul A Nutting and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Lung cancer care: the impact of facilities and area measures.Translational lung cancer research · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Benjamin F CrabtreeDepartment of Family Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ 08873, USA. Crabtrbf@umdnj.edu
Sabrina M Chase
Christopher G Wise
Gordon D Schiff
Laura A Schmidt
Jeanette R Goyzueta
Rebecca A Malouin
Susan M C Payne
Michael T Quinn
Paul A Nutting
William L Miller
Carlos Roberto Jaén

Funding

Integrating Practice & Community Cancer ControlK05CA140237 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI CRABTREE, BENJAMIN F · 2009 to 2013
$851k
NCI NIH HHS K05 CA140237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has become a widely cited solution to the deficiencies in primary care delivery in the United States. To achieve the magnitude of change being called for in primary care, quality improvement interventions must focus on whole-system redesign, and not just isolated parts of medical practices.

methodsInvestigators participating in 9 different evaluations of Patient Centered Medical Home implementation shared experiences, methodological strategies, and evaluation challenges for evaluating primary care practice redesign.

resultsA year-long iterative process of sharing and reflecting on experiences produced consensus on 7 recommendations for future PCMH evaluations: (1) look critically at models being implemented and identify aspects requiring modification; (2) include embedded qualitative and quantitative data collection to detail the implementation process; (3) capture details concerning how different PCMH components interact with one another over time; (4) understand and describe how and why physician and staff roles do, or do not evolve; (5) identify the effectiveness of individual PCMH components and how they are used; (6) capture how primary care practices interface with other entities such as specialists, hospitals, and referral services; and (7) measure resources required for initiating and sustaining innovations.

conclusionsBroad-based longitudinal, mixed-methods designs that provide for shared learning among practice participants, program implementers, and evaluators are necessary to evaluate the novelty and promise of the PCMH model. All PCMH evaluations should as comprehensive as possible, and at a minimum should include a combination of brief observations and targeted qualitative interviews along with quantitative measures.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorHealth Care SurveysHumansInterinstitutional RelationsLongitudinal StudiesModels, OrganizationalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CarePrimary Health CareProfessional RoleQuality of Health CareResearch DesignSystems Integration

Identifiers

PMID21079525
PMCPMC3130251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.