Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36043030›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

Improvement Strategies for the Challenging Collaboration of General Practitioners and Specialists for Patients with Complex Chronic Conditions: A Scoping Review.

Rebecca Tomaschek, Patricia Lampart, Anke Scheel-Sailer, Armin Gemperli, Christoph Merlo, Stefan Essig

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Analysis of radiation oncology integration within general practitioners' daily patient care: a cross-sectional survey in Germany.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Rebecca TomaschekCenter for Primary and Community Care, Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Frohburgstrasse 3, 6002 Lucerne, CH.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4626-248X
Patricia LampartSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Guido A. Zäch Str. 1, 6207 Nottwil, CH.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8960-3403
Anke Scheel-SailerSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Guido A. Zäch Str. 1, 6207 Nottwil, CH.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-6664
Armin GemperliCenter for Primary and Community Care, Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Frohburgstrasse 3, 6002 Lucerne, CH.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2363-0625
Christoph MerloCenter for Primary and Community Care, Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Frohburgstrasse 3, 6002 Lucerne, CH.
Stefan EssigCenter for Primary and Community Care, Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Frohburgstrasse 3, 6002 Lucerne, CH.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3228-7010

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Coordination of healthcare professionals seems to be particularly important for patients with complex chronic disease, as they present a challenging interplay of conditions and symptoms. As one solution, to counteract or prevent this, improving collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the aim of studies by linking or coordinating their services along the continuum of care. This scoping review summarises role distributions and components of this collaboration that have potential for improvement for the care of patients with complex chronic conditions. Methods: Scoping review as a knowledge synthesis for components of collaboration and role distributions between medical specialists and GPs in intervention studies. The PubMed database was searched for literature from 2010-2020. Results: Literature search and reference screening generated 2,174 articles. 30 articles originating from 22 unique projects were included in our synthesis. In the interventions to improve collaboration, the GP is most commonly in charge of patient management and extends the scope of practice. The specialist provides support when needed. Clear definition of roles, resources for knowledge transfer and education from specialists are commonly utilised interventions. Typically, combinations of process and system changes addressing communication and coordination issues are applied. Most interventions improve provider and patient satisfaction, health outcomes, and reduce care fragmentation. Conclusion: This review showed that interventions to improve collaboration between GPs and medical specialists seem promising. Further efforts should be made to test and apply the findings systematically in broad clinical practice.

Indexed as

complex chronic diseasedelivery of health careintegratedinterorganisational collaborationprimary health carespecialised care

Identifiers

PMID36043030
PMCPMC9374013

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.