ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2022
Healthcare stakeholders' perspective on barriers to integrated care in Switzerland: Results from the open-ended question of a nationwide survey.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Work experiences of healthcare professionals in a shortage context: analysis of open-ended comments in a Swiss cohort (SCOHPICA).BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Evaluating disease burden in chronic kidney disease screening using a micro-simulation model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Preferences for innovations in healthcare delivery models in the Swiss elderly population: a latent class, choice modelling study.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- Population-based integrated care funding values and guiding principles: An empirical qualitative study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Healthcare stakeholders' perspective on barriers to integrated care in Switzerland: Results from the open-ended question of a nationwide survey.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to identify the main barriers to integrated care (IC) as reported by healthcare stakeholders from various linguistic regions and health system specificities, according to their reality of practice.
methodsInformation was gathered through an open-ended question from a national survey conducted in Switzerland in 2019. Responses were analysed qualitatively with the IRaMuTeQ software.
resultsAnswers from 410 respondents were obtained. Respondents reported barriers at two levels: the system and professional level. Threat to financial benefits, concerns for patient data sharing and tensions between quality of care and benefits for patients versus costs were mentioned at the professional level, in their activity and in patient care. At the system level, limitations at the political level due to federalism and the lack of support and training for professionals were important barriers, in addition to the lack of recognition and compensation for professionals and the fragmented functioning of the health care system.
conclusionOur study underlines the importance of implementing innovative funding strategies and reimbursement schemes, as well as political willingness to move towards IC. The alignment between federal policies and cantonal specificities also appears as necessary to achieve involvement of professionals, promote integration of services and coordination of professionals for continuous and efficient care.
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.