Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23390410›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2011

Motivation to take part in integrated care-an assessment of follow-up home visits to elderly persons.

Ulf Hjelmar, Carsten Hendriksen, Kirsten Hansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Ulf HjelmarDanish Institute of Governmental Research, Købmagergade 22, DK-1150 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carsten Hendriksen
Kirsten Hansen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of follow-up visits by the general practitioner and district nurse (within a week after discharge from hospital) is to reduce hospital readmissions and improve the overall wellbeing of the patient. There is strong evidence that these programmes are effective, but are difficult to implement because of a number of organizational obstacles, including co-ordination between the organizations involved in the process. In this paper we look at the factors that affect motivation to participate in a cross-sectoral programme in Copenhagen, Denmark, implementing follow-up home visits to elderly persons. THEORY AND

methodsThe analysis is based on inter-organizational network theory in an attempt to explain the role of motivation in network formation between organizational systems. The empirical findings are based on focus groups and in-depth interviews with hospital staff, general practitioners, and district nurses.

resultsCare providers are motivated to collaborate by a number of factors. The focus of collaboration needs to be clearly defined and agreed upon, there needs to be a high degree of equality between the professionals involved, and there has to be a will to co-operate based on a shared understanding of values and learning potentials.

conclusionsThe study concludes that we need to focus on specific care fields and actors to reduce complexity in the area and more fully understand what motivates care providers to participate in cross-sectoral activities, such as a follow-up home visit programme. One lesson for current policy is that motivational factors need to be addressed in future collaborative programmes in order to fully exploit the potential health benefits.

Indexed as

collaborationfollow-up home visitsmotivation

Identifiers

PMID23390410
PMCPMC3564424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.