Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34068727›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

Interdisciplinary Care Networks in Rehabilitation Care for Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review.

Cynthia Lamper, Laura Beckers, Mariëlle Kroese, Jeanine Verbunt, Ivan Huijnen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Cynthia LamperDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Functioning, Participation & Rehabilitation, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7577-827X
Laura BeckersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Functioning, Participation & Rehabilitation, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mariëlle KroeseDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7493-2375
Jeanine VerbuntDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Functioning, Participation & Rehabilitation, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ivan HuijnenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Functioning, Participation & Rehabilitation, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5134-4087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aims to identify what rehabilitation care networks, within primary care or between primary and other health care settings, have been described for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, and what their impact is on the Quadruple Aim outcomes (health; health care costs; quality of care experienced by patients; work satisfaction for health care professionals). Studies published between 1 January 1994 and 11 April 2019 were identified in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycInfo. Forty-nine articles represented 34 interventions: 21 within primary care; 6 between primary and secondary/tertiary care; 1 in primary care and between primary and secondary/tertiary care; 2 between primary and social care; 2 between primary, secondary/tertiary, and social care; and 2 between primary and community care. Results on impact were presented in 19 randomized trials, 12 non-randomized studies, and seven qualitative studies. In conclusion, there is a wide variety of content, collaboration, and evaluation methods of interventions. It seems that patient-centered interdisciplinary interventions are more effective than usual care. Further initiatives should be performed for interdisciplinary interventions within and across health care settings and evaluated with mixed methods on all Quadruple Aim outcomes.

Indexed as

care networkscost-effectivenessexperienced quality of carehealthinterdisciplinary careprimary careQuadruple Aimrehabilitation caresatisfaction with work

Identifiers

PMID34068727
PMCPMC8126257

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.