ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of Medically Complex Patients Enrolled in an Ambulatory Intensive Care Unit at a Healthcare-for-the-Homeless Clinic.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Trial
- Impact of Referring High-Risk Patients to Intensive Outpatient Primary Care Services: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Trial
- Ambulatory Intensive Care for Medically Complex Patients at a Health Care Clinic for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness: The SUMMIT Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- The perceptions of Dutch general practitioners on the implementation of a proactive integrated care approach for patients with complex needs: a pilot survey.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Predicting high-need high-cost pediatric hospitalized patients in China based on machine learning methods.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- What Is the Return on Investment of Caring for Complex High-need, High-cost Patients?Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value.
objectiveTo understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients.
designA total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation.
participantsHigh-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY
resultsPatients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization.
conclusionsPatients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.