Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35020735›Full record

ArticlePloS one

Evaluating the effectiveness of care coordination interventions designed and implemented through a participatory action research process: Lessons learned from a quasi-experimental study in public healthcare networks in Latin America.

María-Luisa Vázquez, Andrea Miranda-Mendizabal, Pamela Eguiguren, Amparo-Susana Mogollón-Pérez, Marina Ferreira-de-Medeiros-Mendes, Julieta López-Vázquez, Fernando Bertolotto, Ingrid Vargas, for Equity LA II

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

María-Luisa VázquezHealth Policy and Health Services Research Group, Health Policy Research Unit, Consortium for Health Care and Social Services of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
Andrea Miranda-MendizabalHealth Policy and Health Services Research Group, Health Policy Research Unit, Consortium for Health Care and Social Services of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
Pamela EguigurenEscuela de Salud Pública Dr. Salvador Allende Gossens, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile.
Amparo-Susana Mogollón-PérezEscuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
Marina Ferreira-de-Medeiros-MendesGrupo de Estudos de Gestão e Avaliação em Saúde, Instituto de Medicina Integral Prof. Fernando Figueira, Recife, Brasil.
Julieta López-VázquezInstituto de Salud Pública, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz, México.
Fernando BertolottoFacultad de Enfermería, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Ingrid VargasHealth Policy and Health Services Research Group, Health Policy Research Unit, Consortium for Health Care and Social Services of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1778-2411
for Equity LA II

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing recommendations for health professionals to participate in intervention design and implementation to effect changes in clinical practice, little is known about this strategy's effectiveness. This study analyses the effectiveness of interventions designed and implemented through participatory action research (PAR) processes in healthcare networks of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay to improve clinical coordination across care levels, and offers recommendations for future research.

methodsThe study was quasi-experimental. Two comparable networks, one intervention (IN) and one control (CN), were selected in each country. Baseline (2015) and evaluation (2017) surveys of a sample of primary and secondary care doctors (174 doctors/network/year) were conducted using the COORDENA® questionnaire. Most of the interventions chosen were based on joint meetings, promoting cross-level clinical agreement and communication for patient follow-up. Outcome variables were: a) intermediate: interactional and organizational factors; b) distal: experience of cross-level clinical information coordination, of clinical management coordination and general perception of coordination between levels. Poisson regression models were estimated.

resultsA statistically significant increase in some of the interactional factors (intermediate outcomes) -knowing each other personally and mutual trust- was observed in Brazil and Chile INs; and in some organizational factors -institutional support- in Colombia and Mexico. Compared to CNs in 2017, INs of Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico showed significant differences in some factors. In distal outcomes, care consistency items improved in Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay INs; and patient follow-up improved in Chile and Mexico. General perception of clinical coordination increased in Brazil, Colombia and Mexico INs. Compared to CNs in 2017, only Brazil showed significant differences.

conclusionsAlthough more research is needed, results show that PAR-based interventions improved some outcomes regarding clinical coordination at network level, with differences between countries. However, a PAR process is, by definition, slow and gradual, and longer implementation periods are needed to achieve greater penetration and quantifiable changes. The participatory and flexible nature of interventions developed through PAR processes poses methodological challenges (such as defining outcomes or allocating individuals to different groups in advance), and requires a comprehensive mixed-methods approach that simultaneously evaluates effectiveness and the implementation process to better understand its outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansLatin AmericaMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionPrimary Health CareProgram EvaluationSecondary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35020735
PMCPMC8754346

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.