Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31501208›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of family medicine2019

Characteristics of Case Management in Primary Care Associated With Positive Outcomes for Frequent Users of Health Care: A Systematic Review.

Catherine Hudon, Maud-Christine Chouinard, Pierre Pluye, Reem El Sherif, Paula Louise Bush, Benoît Rihoux, Marie-Eve Poitras, Mireille Lambert, Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun, France Légaré

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of family medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Caring for high-need patients.BMC health services research · 2023
    Article
  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

10 authors.

Catherine HudonDépartement de Médecine de Famille et de Médecine d'Urgence, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada Catherine.Hudon@usherbrooke.ca.
Maud-Christine ChouinardDépartement des Sciences de la Santé, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada.
Pierre PluyeDépartement de Médecine de Famille, Université McGill, Québec, Canada.
Reem El SherifDépartement de Médecine de Famille, Université McGill, Québec, Canada.
Paula Louise BushDépartement de Médecine de Famille, Université McGill, Québec, Canada.
Benoît RihouxInstitut de Sciences Politiques Louvain-Europe (ISPOLE), Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Marie-Eve PoitrasDépartement des Sciences de la Santé, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada.
Mireille LambertCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Québec, Canada.
Hervé Tchala Vignon ZomahounCentre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
France LégaréDépartement de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d'Urgence, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCase management (CM) interventions are effective for frequent users of health care services, but little is known about which intervention characteristics lead to positive outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics of CM that yield positive outcomes among frequent users with chronic disease in primary care.

methodsFor this systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative studies, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996 to September 2017) and included articles meeting the following criteria: (1)population: adult frequent users with chronic disease, (2)intervention: CM in a primary care setting with a postintervention evaluation, and (3)primary outcomes: integration of services, health care system use, cost, and patient outcome measures. Independent reviewers screened abstracts, read full texts, appraised methodologic quality (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool), and extracted data from the included studies. Sufficient and necessary CM intervention characteristics were identified using configurational comparative methods.

resultsOf the 10,687 records retrieved, 20 studies were included; 17 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods study. Analyses revealed that it is necessary to identify patients most likely to benefit from a CM intervention for CM to produce positive outcomes. High-intensity intervention or the presence of a multidisciplinary/interorganizational care plan was also associated with positive outcomes.

conclusionsPolicy makers and clinicians should focus on their case-finding processes because this is the essential characteristic of CM effectiveness. In addition, value should be placed on high-intensity CM interventions and developing care plans with multiple types of care providers to help improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Case ManagementChronic DiseaseHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareQualitative Researchcase managementfrequent usersprimary health caresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31501208
PMCPMC7032902

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.