Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25108537›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2014

Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: a meta-review.

Nahara Anani Martínez-González, Peter Berchtold, Klara Ullman, André Busato, Matthias Egger

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The UK haemophilia specialist nurse: Competencies fit for practice in the 21st century.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Evaluation of a multidisciplinary care model to improve quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Co-Design of a New Integrated Care Model With People Affected by Huntington's Disease: A Mixed Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Nahara Anani Martínez-GonzálezInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research, University of Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Peter BerchtoldCollege M, College for Management in Health Care, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland.
Klara UllmanInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
André BusatoInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review systematic reviews and meta-analyses of integrated care programmes in chronically ill patients, with a focus on methodological quality, elements of integration assessed and effects reported.

designMeta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified in Medline (1946-March 2012), Embase (1980-March 2012), CINHAL (1981-March 2012) and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (issue 1, 2012).

main outcome measuresMethodological quality assessed by the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; elements of integration assessed using a published list of 10 key principles of integration; effects on patient-centred outcomes, process quality, use of healthcare and costs.

resultsTwenty-seven systematic reviews were identified; conditions included chronic heart failure (CHF; 12 reviews), diabetes mellitus (DM; seven reviews), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; seven reviews) and asthma (five reviews). The median number of AMSTAR checklist items met was five: few reviewers searched for unpublished literature or described the primary studies and interventions in detail. Most reviews covered comprehensive services across the care continuum or standardization of care through inter-professional teams, but organizational culture, governance structure or financial management were rarely assessed. A majority of reviews found beneficial effects of integration, including reduced hospital admissions and re-admissions (in CHF and DM), improved adherence to treatment guidelines (DM, COPD and asthma) or quality of life (DM). Few reviews showed reductions in costs.

conclusionsSystematic reviews of integrated care programmes were of mixed quality, assessed only some components of integration of care, and showed consistent benefits for some outcomes but not others.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseComprehensive Health CareContinuity of Patient CareGuideline AdherenceHospitalizationHumansOrganizational CulturePatient Care TeamPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of Health CareQuality of LifeSystems Integrationchronic conditionshealth services researchintegrated healthcarequality improvementsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID25108537
PMCPMC4195469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.