Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25998142›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Towards an international taxonomy of integrated primary care: a Delphi consensus approach.

Pim P Valentijn, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef, Dirk Ruwaard, Inge Boesveld, Rosa Y Arends, Marc A Bruijnzeels

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patient experiences receiving rehabilitation careFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023
    Article
  19. Demystifying Case Management in Aotearoa New Zealand: A Scoping and Mapping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  20. Article

7 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

6 authors.

Pim P ValentijnJan van Es Institute, Netherlands Expert Centre Integrated Primary Care, Wisselweg 33, CB 1314, Almere, The Netherlands. p.valentijn@jvei.nl.
Hubertus J M VrijhoefScientific Centre for Care and Welfare (Tranzo), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. vrijhoef_hubertus@nuhs.edu.sg.
Dirk RuwaardDepartment of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. d.ruwaard@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Inge BoesveldJan van Es Institute, Netherlands Expert Centre Integrated Primary Care, Wisselweg 33, CB 1314, Almere, The Netherlands. i.boesveld@jvei.nl.
Rosa Y ArendsDepartment of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. r.y.arends@utwente.nl.
Marc A BruijnzeelsJan van Es Institute, Netherlands Expert Centre Integrated Primary Care, Wisselweg 33, CB 1314, Almere, The Netherlands. m.bruijnzeels@jvei.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeveloping integrated service models in a primary care setting is considered an essential strategy for establishing a sustainable and affordable health care system. The Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC) describes the theoretical foundations of integrated primary care. The aim of this study is to refine the RMIC by developing a consensus-based taxonomy of key features.

methodsFirst, the appropriateness of previously identified key features was retested by conducting an international Delphi study that was built on the results of a previous national Delphi study. Second, categorisation of the features among the RMIC integrated care domains was assessed in a second international Delphi study. Finally, a taxonomy was constructed by the researchers based on the results of the three Delphi studies.

resultsThe final taxonomy consists of 21 key features distributed over eight integration domains which are organised into three main categories: scope (person-focused vs. population-based), type (clinical, professional, organisational and system) and enablers (functional vs. normative) of an integrated primary care service model.

conclusionsThe taxonomy provides a crucial differentiation that clarifies and supports implementation, policy formulation and research regarding the organisation of integrated primary care. Further research is needed to develop instruments based on the taxonomy that can reveal the realm of integrated primary care in practice.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareClassificationDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedDelphi TechniqueHumansInternational CooperationModels, OrganizationalNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID25998142
PMCPMC4446832

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.