Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28743288›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2017

The patient perspective: utilizing focus groups to inform care coordination for high-risk medicaid populations.

Alex Sheff, Elyse R Park, Mary Neagle, Nicolas M Oreskovic

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alex SheffMedicaid Strategies, Department of Community Health and Population Health Management, Partners HealthCare, 399 Revolution Dr., Somerville, MA, 02145, USA.
Elyse R ParkPsychiatry-Outpatient Department, Massachusetts General Hospital/Mongan Institute for Health Policy, 50 Staniford Street, Boston, USA.
Mary NeagleIntegrated Care Management Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, 125 Nashua Street, MGH, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Nicolas M OreskovicHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. noreskovic@mgh.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMass General Brigham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare coordination programs for high-risk, high-cost patients are a critical component of population health management. These programs aim to improve outcomes and reduce costs and have proliferated over the last decade. Some programs, originally designed for Medicare patients, are now transitioning to also serve Medicaid populations. However, there are still gaps in the understanding of what barriers to care Medicaid patients experience, and what supports will be most effective for providing them care coordination.

methodsWe conducted two focus groups (n = 13) and thematic analyses to assess the outcomes drivers and programmatic preferences of Medicaid patients enrolled in a high-risk care coordination program at a major academic medical center in Boston, MA.

findingsTwo focus groups identified areas where care coordination efforts were having a positive impact, as well as areas of unmet needs among the Medicaid population. Six themes emerged from the focus groups that clustered in three groupings: In the first group (1) enrollment in an existing medical care coordination programs, and (2) provider communication largely presented as positive accounts of assistance, and good relationships with providers, though participants also pointed to areas where these efforts fell short. In the second group (3) trauma histories, (4) mental health challenges, and (5) executive function difficulties all presented challenges faced by high-risk Medicaid patients that would likely require redress through additional programmatic supports. Finally, in the third group, (6) peer-to-peer support tendencies among patients suggested an untapped resource for care coordination programs.

conclusionsPrograms aimed at high-risk Medicaid patients will want to consider programmatic adjustments to attend to patient needs in five areas: (1) provider connection/care coordination, (2) trauma, (3) mental health, (4) executive function/paperwork and coaching support, and (5) peer-to-peer support.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareFocus GroupsMedicaidExecutive FunctionHumansMental HealthPeer GroupRisk FactorsUnited StatesAccountable Care OrganizationCare coordinationCare managementFocus GroupsMedicaid

Identifiers

PMID28743288
PMCPMC5526300
OpenAlexW2736392170

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.