Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26423992›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2016

A Systematic Review of Conceptual Frameworks of Medical Complexity and New Model Development.

Leah L Zullig, Heather E Whitson, Susan N Hastings, Chris Beadles, Julia Kravchenko, Igor Akushevich, Matthew L Maciejewski

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Caring for high-need patients.BMC health services research · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Leah L ZulligCenter for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Heather E WhitsonGeriatrics Research, Education and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Susan N HastingsCenter for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Chris BeadlesAmbulatory Care Service, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Julia KravchenkoAmbulatory Care Service, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Igor AkushevichAmbulatory Care Service, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Matthew L MaciejewskiCenter for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, Suite 600, Durham, NC, 27701, USA. Matthew.Maciejewski@va.gov.

Funding

Resource Core 3 - Metabolomics CoreP30AG028716 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Sarah B. Peskoe · 2006 to 2026
$24.6M
Advancing Geriatrics Infrastructure & Network Growth - Admin Supplement: Designing and Testing an Informatics Tool to Aid Prescribers in Reducing Anticholinergic Burden in Older AdultsR24AG045050 · NIA · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI GURWITZ, JERRY H · 2014 to 2017
$3.6M
Cognitive Changes and Brain Connectivity in Age-Related Macular DegenerationR01AG043438 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WHITSON, HEATHER E. · 2013 to 2017
$2.1M
Fragmentation of Medication Management in MedicareR01HS023085 · AHRQ · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MACIEJEWSKI, MATTHEW L · 2014 to 2014
$377k
Continuity of Medication Management in MedicaidR01HS023099 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI FARLEY, JOEL F. · 2014 to 2014
$376k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS023085AHRQ HHS R01HS023085AHRQ HHS R01 HS023099AHRQ HHS R01HS023099HSRD VA CDA 13-025HSRD VA IK2 HX001345NIA NIH HHS P30AG027816NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028716NIA NIH HHS R01 AG043438NIA NIH HHS R01AG043438NIA NIH HHS R24 AG045050NIA NIH HHS R24AG045050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient complexity is often operationalized by counting multiple chronic conditions (MCC) without considering contextual factors that can affect patient risk for adverse outcomes.

objectiveOur objective was to develop a conceptual model of complexity addressing gaps identified in a review of published conceptual models. DATA SOURCES: We searched for English-language MEDLINE papers published between 1 January 2004 and 16 January 2014. Two reviewers independently evaluated abstracts and all authors contributed to the development of the conceptual model in an iterative process.

resultsFrom 1606 identified abstracts, six conceptual models were selected. One additional model was identified through reference review. Each model had strengths, but several constructs were not fully considered: 1) contextual factors; 2) dynamics of complexity; 3) patients' preferences; 4) acute health shocks; and 5) resilience. Our Cycle of Complexity model illustrates relationships between acute shocks and medical events, healthcare access and utilization, workload and capacity, and patient preferences in the context of interpersonal, organizational, and community factors. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This model may inform studies on the etiology of and changes in complexity, the relationship between complexity and patient outcomes, and intervention development to improve modifiable elements of complex patients.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityModels, TheoreticalPatient PreferenceHumansPatient Carecomplexitymultimorbiditymultiple chronic conditionspatient goalpatientsresilience

Identifiers

PMID26423992
PMCPMC4762821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.