Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26564013›Full record

SynthesisPreventing chronic disease2015

Systematic Review of Programs Treating High-Need and High-Cost People With Multiple Chronic Diseases or Disabilities in the United States, 2008-2014.

Sara N Bleich, Cheryl Sherrod, Anne Chiang, Cynthia Boyd, Jennifer Wolff, Eva DuGoff, Eva Chang, Claudia Salzberg, Keely Anderson, Bruce Leff and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Preventing chronic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Compliance with clinical guidelines: the role of incentives and competition between practitioners.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Caring for high-need patients.BMC health services research · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sara N BleichThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Cheryl SherrodThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Anne ChiangThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Cynthia BoydThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jennifer WolffThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Eva DuGoff
Eva ChangThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Claudia SalzbergThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Keely AndersonThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bruce LeffThe Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Gerard AndersonDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 624 N. Broadway, Room 302, Baltimore, MD 21205. Email: ganderson@jhu.edu.

Funding

Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD047873 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Katherine J. Curtis · 2014 to 2026
$5.1M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD047873
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFinding ways to provide better and less expensive health care for people with multiple chronic conditions or disability is a pressing concern. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate different approaches for caring for this high-need and high-cost population.

methodsWe searched Medline for articles published from May 31, 2008, through June 10, 2014, for relevant studies. Articles were considered eligible for this review if they met the following criteria: included people with multiple chronic conditions (behavioral or mental health) or disabilities (2 or more); addressed 1 or more of clinical outcomes, health care use and spending, or patient satisfaction; and compared results from an intervention group with a comparison group or baseline measurements. We extracted information on program characteristics, participant characteristics, and significant (positive and negative) clinical findings, patient satisfaction, and health care use outcomes. For each outcome, the number of significant and positive results was tabulated.

resultsTwenty-seven studies were included across 5 models of care. Of the 3 studies reporting patient satisfaction outcomes, 2 reported significant improvements; both were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 14 studies reporting clinical outcomes, 12 reported improvements (8 were RCTs). Of the 13 studies reporting health care use and spending outcomes, 12 reported significant improvements (2 were RCTs). Two models of care - care and case management and disease management - reported improvements in all 3 outcomes. For care and case management models, most improvements were related to health care use. For the disease management models, most improvements were related to clinical outcomes.

conclusionsCare and case management as well as disease management may be promising models of care for people with multiple chronic conditions or disabilities. More research and consistent methods are needed to understand the most appropriate care for these high-need and high-cost patients.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePersons with DisabilitiesCase ManagementChronic DiseaseDisease ManagementHealth Care CostsHumansPatient SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26564013
PMCPMC4651160

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.