Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35687382›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Assessing Progress Toward the Vision of a Comprehensive, Shared Electronic Care Plan: Scoping Review.

Jenna M Norton, Alex Ip, Nicole Ruggiano, Tolulope Abidogun, Djibril Souleymane Camara, Helen Fu, Bat-Zion Hose, Saadia Miran, Chun-Ju Hsiao, Jing Wang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Care Partner Perspectives on the Use of a Patient Portal Intervention to Promote Care Partner Identification in Dementia Care.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Jenna M NortonDivision of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0407-8505
Alex IpSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1519-9871
Nicole RuggianoSchool of Social Work, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2398-7077
Tolulope AbidogunOffice of Clinical Research Support, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5366-0585
Djibril Souleymane CamaraPublic Health Informatics Fellowship Program, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4241-9542
Helen FuRichard M Fairbanks School of Public Health, Center for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4371-1147
Bat-Zion HoseDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadephia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4368-0136
Saadia MiranDivision of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3469-5088
Chun-Ju HsiaoCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5494-1971
Jing WangCollege of Nursing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4012-0977
Arlene S BiermanCenter for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4792-9020
National Institutes of Health · USAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USFlorida State University · USGeorge Washington University · USRegenstrief Institute · USUniversity of Alabama · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare plans are central to effective care delivery for people with multiple chronic conditions. But existing care plans-which typically are difficult to share across care settings and care team members-poorly serve people with multiple chronic conditions, who often receive care from numerous clinicians in multiple care settings. Comprehensive, shared electronic care (e-care) plans are dynamic electronic tools that facilitate care coordination and address the totality of health and social needs across care contexts. They have emerged as a potential way to improve care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions.

objectiveTo review the landscape of e-care plans and care plan-related initiatives that could allow the creation of a comprehensive, shared e-care plan and inform a joint initiative by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to develop e-care planning tools for people with multiple chronic conditions.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review, searching literature from 2015 to June 2020 using Scopus, Clinical Key, and PubMed; we also searched the gray literature. To identify initiatives potentially missing from this search, we interviewed expert informants. Relevant data were then identified and extracted in a structured format for data synthesis and analysis using an expanded typology of care plans adapted to our study context. The extracted data included (1) the perspective of the initiatives; (2) their scope, (3) network, and (4) context; (5) their use of open syntax standards; and (6) their use of open semantic standards.

resultsWe identified 7 projects for e-care plans and 3 projects for health care data standards. Each project provided critical infrastructure that could be leveraged to promote the vision of a comprehensive, shared e-care plan. All the e-care plan projects supported both broad goals and specific behaviors; 1 project supported a network of professionals across clinical, community, and home-based networks; 4 projects included social determinants of health. Most projects specified an open syntax standard, but only 3 specified open semantic standards.

conclusionsA comprehensive, shared, interoperable e-care plan has the potential to greatly improve the coordination of care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions across multiple care settings. The need for such a plan is heightened in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While none of the existing care plan projects meet all the criteria for an optimal e-care plan, they all provide critical infrastructure that can be leveraged as we advance toward the vision of a comprehensive, shared e-care plan. However, critical gaps must be addressed in order to achieve this vision.

Indexed as

COVID-19Multiple Chronic ConditionsDelivery of Health CareElectronicsHumansPandemicscare coordinationcare plancare planningchronic conditionchronic diseasedigital healthe-careeHealthelectronic careelectronic care planelectronic toolshealthcare datamultiple chronic conditionsmultiple conditions

Identifiers

PMID35687382
PMCPMC9233246
OpenAlexW4281952572

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.