Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31773803›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2020

Unknown makes unloved-A case study on improving integrated health and social care in the Netherlands using a participatory approach.

Manon Lette, Marijke Boorsma, Lidwien Lemmens, Annerieke Stoop, Giel Nijpels, Caroline Baan, Simone de Bruin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Manon LetteDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC - VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7026-8278
Marijke BoorsmaDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC - VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lidwien LemmensCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Annerieke StoopDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC - VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6855-8073
Giel NijpelsDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC - VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline BaanCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Simone de BruinCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many initiatives integrating health and social care have been implemented in order to provide adequate care and support to older people living at home. Further development of existing initiatives requires iterative processes of developing, implementing and evaluating improvements to current practice. This case study provides insight into the process of improving an existing integrated care initiative in the Netherlands. Using a participatory approach, researchers and local stakeholders collaborated to develop and implement activities to further improve collaboration between health and social care professionals. Improvement activities included interprofessional meetings focussing on reflection and mutual learning and workplace visits. Researchers evaluated the improvement process, using data triangulation of multiple qualitative and quantitative data sources. According to participating professionals, the improvement activities improved their communication and collaboration by establishing mutual understanding and trust. Enabling factors included the safe and informal setting in which the meetings took place and the personal relationships they developed during the project. Different organisational cultures and interests and a lack of ownership and accountability among managers hindered the improvement process, whereas issues such as staff shortages, time constraints and privacy regulations made it difficult to implement improvements on a larger scale. Still, the participatory approach encouraged the development of partnerships and shared goals on the level of both managers and professionals. This case study highlights that improving communication between professionals is an important first step in improving integrated care. In addition, it shows that a participatory approach, in which improvements are co-created and tailored to local priorities and needs, can help in the development of shared goals and trust between stakeholders with different perspectives. However, stakeholders' willingness and ability to participate in such an improvement process is challenged by many factors.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesSocial SupportAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHumansInterprofessional RelationsInterviews as TopicNetherlandsQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementSocial ResponsibilityTrustcase study researchhealth and social careintegrated careinterprofessional education and service developmentsmulti-professional collaborationsparticipative research

Identifiers

PMID31773803
PMCPMC7028071

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.