Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25337064›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2014

Instruments to assess integrated care: a systematic review.

Anne Marie Lyngsø, Nina Skavlan Godtfredsen, Dorte Høst, Anne Frølich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Measuring Processes of Integrated Care for Hospital to Home Transitions.International journal of integrated care · 2021
    Article
  6. Towards a New System for the Assessment of the Quality in Care Pathways: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Shared care involving cancer specialists and primary care providers - What do cancer survivors want?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Development and psychometric evaluation of a measure to evaluate the quality of integrated care: the Patient Assessment of Integrated Elderly Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Anne Marie LyngsøDepartment of Integrated Healthcare, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nina Skavlan GodtfredsenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hvidovre University Hospital, Kettegaard Allé 30, DK-2650 Hvidovre, Denmark.
Dorte HøstDepartment of Integrated Healthcare, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne FrølichDepartment of Integrated Healthcare, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough several measurement instruments have been developed to measure the level of integrated health care delivery, no standardised, validated instrument exists covering all aspects of integrated care. The purpose of this review is to identify the instruments concerning how to measure the level of integration across health-care sectors and to assess and evaluate the organisational elements within the instruments identified.

methodsAn extensive, systematic literature review in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science for the years 1980-2011. Selected abstracts were independently reviewed by two investigators.

resultsWe identified 23 measurement instruments and, within these, eight organisational elements were found. No measurement instrument covered all organisational elements, but almost all studies include well-defined structural and process aspects and six include cultural aspects; 14 explicitly stated using a theoretical framework. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: This review did not identify any measurement instrument covering all aspects of integrated care. Further, a lack of uniform use of the eight organisational elements across the studies was prevalent. It is uncertain whether development of a single 'all-inclusive' model for assessing integrated care is desirable. We emphasise the continuing need for validated instruments embedded in theoretical contexts.

Indexed as

integrated caremeasurement instrumentsorganisational elementssystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID25337064
PMCPMC4203116

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.