Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32292310›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2020

Professional Care Networks of Frail Older People: An Explorative Survey Study from the Patient Perspective.

Sietske M Grol, Gerard R M Molleman, Michel Wensing, Anne Kuijpers, Joni K Scholte, Maria T C van den Muijsenbergh, Nynke D Scherpbier, Henk J Schers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Family carers' experiences and perceived roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: A constructivist grounded theory study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Sietske M GrolRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, NL.
Gerard R M MollemanRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, NL.
Michel WensingDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, DE.
Anne KuijpersRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, NL.
Joni K ScholteRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, NL.
Maria T C van den MuijsenberghRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, NL.
Nynke D ScherpbierRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, NL.
Henk J SchersRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, NL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrail older people living in the community require multidisciplinary care. Despite the fact that patient participation is high on the public agenda, studies into multidisciplinary care mainly focus on the viewpoints of professionals. Little is known about frail older patients' experiences with care delivered by multidisciplinary teams and their perception of collaboration between professional and informal caregivers.

objectiveTo gain more insight into the experiences of frail older patients with integrated multidisciplinary care by mapping the care networks of this patient group and their perception of the interconnection between professional and informal caregivers.

methodsSurvey study to facilitate a care network analysis. Due to the vulnerable health status of the respondents, questionnaires were completed during interviews. Analysis was performed using an iterative process, using both visual and metric techniques.

participants44 older persons, considered 'frail' by their general practitioner.

settingFour general practices in The Netherlands.

resultsThe networks of the participants consisted of an average of 15 actors connected by 54 ties. General practitioners were the most common actors in the networks, and were well connected to medical specialists and in-home care providers. The participants did not always perceive a connection between their general practitioner and their informal caregiver. The network analyses resulted in the identification of three subtypes: simple star (n = 16), complex star (n = 16), and sub-group networks (n = 12).

conclusionsOur findings indicate that the elderly often do not experience the integration of multidisciplinary care as such. This is a real opportunity for MTs to improve their care and to make the patients' experiences better in line with what they are aiming: allowing patients to live at home as healthy and independently as possible for as long as possible. We showed that informal caregivers often form communication bridges between patients and professionals. Having a better knowledge of the patient perspective enables the gaps in professional care networks of frail older people to be filled and facilitates the anticipation of crisis situations.

Indexed as

frail elderlymultidisciplinary teamsnetwork analysisnetwork typologiespatient perspectiveprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32292310
PMCPMC7147679

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.