Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31536548›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Validation of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care Measurement Tools (RMIC-MTs) in renal care for patient and care providers.

Pim P Valentijn, Fernando Pereira, Christina W Sterner, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef, Dirk Ruwaard, Jörgen Hegbrant, Giovanni F M Strippoli

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
14.8field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Towards a New System for the Assessment of the Quality in Care Pathways: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  17. Goal-Oriented Care: A Catalyst for Person-Centred System Integration.International journal of integrated care · 2020
    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 4 countries.

Pim P ValentijnDepartment of Patient and Care, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9788-1275
Fernando PereiraStrategy and Health Economics Office, Diaverum, Madrid, Spain.
Christina W SternerStrategy and Health Economics Office, Diaverum, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Hubertus J M VrijhoefDepartment of Patient and Care, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Dirk RuwaardDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jörgen HegbrantDiaverum Medical Scientific Office, Diaverum Sweden AB, Lund, Sweden.
Giovanni F M StrippoliDiaverum Medical Scientific Office, Diaverum Sweden AB, Lund, Sweden.
Maastricht University · NLThe University of Sydney · AUVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntegrated service delivery is considered to be an essential condition for improving the management and health outcomes of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, research on the assessment of integrated care by patients and care providers is hindered by the absence of brief, reliable, and valid measurement tools.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop survey instruments for healthcare professionals and patients based on the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC), and to evaluate their psychometric properties.

designThe development process was based on the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines. This included item generation from systematic reviews of existing tools and expert opinion on clarity and content validity, involving renal care providers and chronic kidney patients. A cross-sectional, multi-centre design was used to test for internal consistency and construct validity.

settingOutpatient clinics in a large renal network.

participantsA sample of 30.788 CKD patients, and 8.914 renal care providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Both survey instruments were developed using previous qualitative work and published literature. A multidisciplinary expert panel assessed the face and content validity of both instruments and following a pilot study, the psychometric properties of both instruments were explored. Exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and with promax rotation was used to assess the underlying dimensions of both instruments; Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal constancy reliability.

results17.512 patients (response rate: 56.9%) and 8.849 care providers (response rate: 69.5%) responded to the questionnaires. Factor analysis of the patient questionnaire yielded three internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.7) factors: person-centeredness, clinical coordination, and professional coordination. Factor analysis of the provider questionnaire produced eight internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.7) factors: person-centeredness, community centeredness, clinical coordination, professional coordination, organisational coordination, system coordination, technical and cultural competence. As hypothesised, care coordination patient and providers scores significantly correlated with questions about quality of care, treatment involvement, reported health, clinics' organisational readiness, and external care coordination capacity.

conclusionThis study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the RMIC patient and provider questionnaires as generic tools to assess the experience with or perception of integrated renal care delivery. The instruments are recommended in future applications testing test-retest reliability, convergent and predictive validity, and responsiveness.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory Care FacilitiesChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansKidneyMaleMiddle AgedPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID31536548
PMCPMC6752779
OpenAlexW2974193847

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.