ArticleBMC health services research2017
Evaluation of a program to strengthen general practice care for patients with chronic disease in Germany.
Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to Prevent Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- The Role of Health Technologies in Multicomponent Primary Care Interventions: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Multicomponent interventions for enhancing primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Pooled it
- Improving access, mixed continuity: effects of multidisciplinary teams on primary health-care in Finland - a quasi-experimental study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Continuity of care in a pandemic: an observational study in GP-centred healthcare in Germany.BMJ open quality · 2025Observational
- General practitioner-centred paediatric primary care reduces risk of hospitalisation for mental disorders in children and adolescents with ADHD: findings from a retrospective cohort study.The European journal of general practice · 2022Article
- Observational
- Evaluation of a collaborative ambulatory orthopedic care program for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a comparative observational cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Observational
- Measuring care coordination in German primary care - adaptation and psychometric properties of the Medical Home Care Coordination Survey.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Continuity in general practice and hospitalization patterns: an observational study.BMC family practice · 2021Observational
- Intensified ambulatory cardiology care: effects on mortality and hospitalisation-a comparative observational study.Scientific reports · 2020Observational
- Strong primary care and patients' survival.Scientific reports · 2019Observational
- Effects of a program to strengthen general practice care on hospitalisation rates: a comparative observational study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2018Observational
- Patients with somatoform disorders: More frequent attendance and higher utilization in primary Out-of-Hours care?PloS one · 2018Article
- Hospital Admission and Discharge: Lessons Learned from a Large Programme in Southwest Germany.International journal of integrated careArticle
- Collaborative Ambulatory Orthopaedic Care in Patients with Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study on Health Utilisation and Economic Outcomes.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA program to strengthen general practice care for patients with chronic disease was offered in Germany. Enrollment was a free individual choice for both patients and physicians. This study aimed to examine the long-term impact of this program.
methodsTwo comparative evaluations were done, at 4 and 5 years (T1 and T2) after start of the program. In each year, patients in the program were compared with patients in usual care. Measures were based on routinely collected data and concerned 11 aspects of primary care and hospital care. Study groups were compared, using regression analysis adjusted for confounders and clustering.
resultsData on 1.187.597 and 1.591.017 eligible patients were available for the analysis for T1 and T2, respectively. Compared to usual care, the program was associated with more visits to the GP per patient (adjusted difference at T2: +1.98), more drugs prescribed per patient (+0.071), lower percentage of drugs that should be avoided (-0.699), and lower yearly medication costs per patient (-85.39 euro). The number of referrals to ambulatory specialists, either with or without referral from GP, was reduced at T2. In hospital care, the program was associated with fewer hospital admissions per patient per year (-0.017) and fewer avoidable hospital admissions of all admissions (-1.165%). Total hospital costs were slightly higher in T1, but lower in T2. Days in hospital and number of readmissions were lower at T2 only.
conclusionThe program has increased the role of general practice in healthcare for patients who chose to be included in the program of intensified general practice care.
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.