ArticleAnnals of family medicine2015
Recommendations for a mixed methods approach to evaluating the patient-centered medical home.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Questionnaires that measure the quality of relationships between patients and primary care providers: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- Developing a reporting item checklist for studies of HIV drug resistance prevalence or incidence: a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Organization of Rehabilitation Services in Randomized Controlled Trials: Which Factors Influence Functional Outcome? A Systematic Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2022Review
- Developing Reporting Guidelines for Studies of HIV Drug Resistance Prevalence: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Quality and team care response to the pandemic stresses in high performing primary care practices: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2022Article
- What matters in patient-centered medical home transformation: Whole system evaluation outcomes of the Brown Primary Care Transformation Initiative.SAGE open medicine · 2018Article
- Resolving Rivalries and Realigning Goals: Challenges of Clinical and Research Multiteam Systems.Journal of oncology practice · 2016Article
- In this issue: developing and amplifying the effectiveness of the primary care workforce.Annals of family medicine · 2015Article
- Parents' Lived Experiences during their Child's Ilizarov Treatment: A Qualitative Study from a Tertiary Paediatric Orthopaedic Centre in India.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere is a strong push in the United States to evaluate whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model produces desired results. The explanatory and contextually based questions of how and why PCMH succeeds in different practice settings are often neglected. We report the development of a comprehensive, mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluation set for researchers, policy makers, and clinician groups.
methodsTo develop an evaluation set, the Brown Primary Care Transformation Initiative convened a multidisciplinary group of PCMH experts, reviewed the PCMH literature and evaluation strategies, developed key domains for evaluation, and selected or created methods and measures for inclusion.
resultsThe measures and methods in the evaluation set (survey instruments, PCMH meta-measures, patient outcomes, quality measures, qualitative interviews, participant observation, and process evaluation) are meant to be used together. PCMH evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to assess and explain both the context of transformation in different primary care practices and the experiences of diverse stakeholders. In addition to commonly assessed patient outcomes, quality, and cost, it is critical to include PCMH components integral to practice culture transformation: patient and family centeredness, authentic patient activation, mutual trust among practice employees and patients, and transparency, joy, and collaboration in delivering and receiving care in a changing environment.
conclusionsThis evaluation set offers a comprehensive methodology to enable understanding of how PCMH transformation occurs in different practice settings. This approach can foster insights about how transformation affects critical outcomes to achieve meaningful, patient-centered, high-quality, and cost-effective sustainable change among diverse primary care practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.