Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25098231›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2014

Implementation of chronic illness care in German primary care practices--how do multimorbid older patients view routine care? A cross-sectional study using multilevel hierarchical modeling.

Juliana J Petersen, Michael A Paulitsch, Karola Mergenthal, Jochen Gensichen, Heike Hansen, Siegfried Weyerer, Steffi G Riedel-Heller, Angela Fuchs, Wolfgang Maier, Horst Bickel and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Juliana J PetersenInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt/Main 60590, Germany. petersen@allgemeinmedizin.uni-frankfurt.de.
Michael A Paulitsch
Karola Mergenthal
Jochen Gensichen
Heike Hansen
Siegfried Weyerer
Steffi G Riedel-Heller
Angela Fuchs
Wolfgang Maier
Horst Bickel
Hans-Helmut König
Birgitt Wiese
Hendrik van den Bussche
Martin Scherer
Anne Dahlhaus
MultiCare Study Group
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of Bonn · DEHeidelberg University · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn primary care, patients with multiple chronic conditions are the rule rather than the exception. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an evidence-based framework for improving chronic illness care, but little is known about the extent to which it has been implemented in routine primary care. The aim of this study was to describe how multimorbid older patients assess the routine chronic care they receive in primary care practices in Germany, and to explore the extent to which factors at both the practice and patient level determine their views.

methodsThis cross-sectional study used baseline data from an observational cohort study involving 158 general practitioners (GP) and 3189 multimorbid patients. Standardized questionnaires were employed to collect data, and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire used to assess the quality of care received. Multilevel hierarchical modeling was used to identify any existing association between the dependent variable, PACIC, and independent variables at the patient level (socio-economic factors, weighted count of chronic conditions, instrumental activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, graded chronic pain, no. of contacts with GP, existence of a disease management program (DMP) disease, self-efficacy, and social support) and the practice level (age and sex of GP, years in current practice, size and type of practice).

resultsThe overall mean PACIC score was 2.4 (SD 0.8), with the mean subscale scores ranging from 2.0 (SD 1.0, subscale goal setting/tailoring) to 3.5 (SD 0.7, delivery system design). At the patient level, higher PACIC scores were associated with a DMP disease, more frequent GP contacts, higher social support, and higher autonomy of past occupation. At the practice level, solo practices were associated with higher PACIC values than other types of practice.

conclusionsThis study shows that from the perspective of multimorbid patients receiving care in German primary care practices, the implementation of structured care and counseling could be improved, particularly by helping patients set specific goals, coordinating care, and arranging follow-up contacts. Studies evaluating chronic care should take into consideration that a patient's assessment is associated not only with practice-level factors, but also with individual, patient-level factors.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN89818205.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityModels, OrganizationalChronic DiseaseComorbidityCross-Sectional StudiesEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPrimary Health CareProspective StudiesQuality of Health CareQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID25098231
PMCPMC4132196
OpenAlexW2098423794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.