Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31174501›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

A population-based approach to integrated healthcare delivery: a scoping review of clinical care and public health collaboration.

Mohammad Shahzad, Ross Upshur, Peter Donnelly, Aamir Bharmal, Xiaolin Wei, Patrick Feng, Adalsteinn D Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
18.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Methodological considerations for evaluating scale-up programmes in healthcare: a methods review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammad ShahzadDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. m.shahzad@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3787-9755
Ross UpshurDivision of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Canada.
Peter DonnellyDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Aamir BharmalDivision of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Canada.
Xiaolin WeiDivision of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Canada.
Patrick FengDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Adalsteinn D BrownDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAFraser Health · CAPublic Health Ontario · CA

Funding

Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA population-based approach to healthcare goes beyond the traditional biomedical model and addresses the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration in promoting health of communities. By establishing partnerships across primary care (PC) and public health (PH) sectors in particular, healthcare organizations can address local health needs of populations and improve health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to map a series of interventions from the empirical literature that facilitate PC-PH collaboration and develop a resource for healthcare organizations to self-evaluate their clinical practices and identify opportunities for collaboration with PH.

methodsA scoping review was designed and studies from relevant peer-reviewed literature and reports between 1990 and 2017 were included if they met the following criteria: empirical study methodology (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), based in US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia or New Zealand, describing an intervention involving PC-PH collaboration, and reporting on structures, processes, outcomes or markers of a PC-PH collaboration intervention.

resultsOut of 2962 reviewed articles, 45 studies with interventions leading to collaboration were classified into the following four synergy groups developed by Lasker's Committee on Medicine and Public Health: Coordinating healthcare services (n = 13); Applying a population perspective to clinical practice (n = 21); Identifying and addressing community health problems (n = 19), and Strengthening health promotion and health protection (n = 21). Furthermore, select empirical examples of interventions and their key features were highlighted to illustrate various approaches to implementing collaboration interventions in the field.

conclusionsThe findings of our review can be utilized by a range of organizations in healthcare settings across the included countries. Furthermore, we developed a self-evaluation tool that can serve as a resource for clinical practices to identify opportunities for cross-sectoral collaboration and develop a range of interventions to address unmet health needs in communities; however, the generalizability of the findings depends on the evaluations conducted in individual studies in our review. From a health equity perspective, our findings also highlight interventions from the empirical literature that address inequities in care by targeting underserved, high-risk populations groups. Further research is needed to develop outcome measures for successful collaboration and determine which interventions are sustainable in the long term.

Indexed as

Intersectoral CollaborationAustraliaCanadaDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEuropeHealth PromotionHumansNew ZealandPrimary Health CarePublic HealthUnited StatesCommunity healthHealth equityPopulation healthPrimary carePublic health

Identifiers

PMID31174501
PMCPMC6556001
OpenAlexW2948679325

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.