Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31098976›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2019

Health Care Coordination Theoretical Frameworks: a Systematic Scoping Review to Increase Their Understanding and Use in Practice.

Kim Peterson, Johanna Anderson, Donald Bourne, Martin P Charns, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin, Denise M Hynes, Kathryn M McDonald, Sara J Singer, Elizabeth M Yano

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Uncovering Four Types of Care Coordination in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Kim PetersonDepartment of Veterans Affairs, VA Portland Health Care System, Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Coordinating Center, Portland, OR, USA. Kimberly.Peterson4@va.gov.
Johanna AndersonDepartment of Veterans Affairs, VA Portland Health Care System, Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Coordinating Center, Portland, OR, USA.
Donald BourneDepartment of Veterans Affairs, VA Portland Health Care System, Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Coordinating Center, Portland, OR, USA.
Martin P CharnsVA HSR&D Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Sherri Sheinfeld GorinNew York Physicians against Cancer (NYPAC), New York, NY, USA.
Denise M HynesDepartment of Veterans Affairs, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA.
Kathryn M McDonaldStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sara J SingerStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Elizabeth M YanoVA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

HSRD VA I01 HX002655
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare coordination is crucial to avoid potential risks of care fragmentation in people with complex care needs. While there are many empirical and conceptual approaches to measuring and improving care coordination, use of theory is limited by its complexity and the wide variability of available frameworks. We systematically identified and categorized existing care coordination theoretical frameworks in new ways to make the theory-to-practice link more accessible.

methodsTo identify relevant frameworks, we searched MEDLINE®, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX from 2010 to May 2018, and various other nonbibliographic sources. We summarized framework characteristics and organized them using categories from the Sustainable intEgrated chronic care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing, and performancE (SELFIE) framework. Based on expert input, we then categorized available frameworks on consideration of whether they addressed contextual factors, what locus they addressed, and their design elements. We used predefined criteria for study selection and data abstraction.

resultsAmong 4389 citations, we identified 37 widely diverse frameworks, including 16 recent frameworks unidentified by previous reviews. Few led to development of measures (39%) or initiatives (6%). We identified 5 that are most relevant to primary care. The 2018 framework by Weaver et al., describing relationships between a wide range of primary care-specific domains, may be the most useful to those investigating the effectiveness of primary care coordination approaches. We also identified 3 frameworks focused on locus and design features of implementation that could prove especially useful to those responsible for implementing care coordination. DISCUSSION: This review identified the most comprehensive frameworks and their main emphases for several general practice-relevant applications. Greater application of these frameworks in the design and evaluation of coordination approaches may increase their consistent implementation and measurement. Future research should emphasize implementation-focused frameworks that better identify factors and mechanisms through which an initiative achieves impact.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHumansPatient Care TeamQuality ImprovementUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans Affairscare coordinationintegrated caretheoretical frameworktheoretical model

Identifiers

PMID31098976
PMCPMC6542910

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.