Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36060830›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

One for All, All for One: A Mixed Methods Case Study into the Role Organisational and Personal Interests Play on Cooperation in Dutch Integrated Dementia Care Networks.

Eline Kroeze, Robbert Huijsman

Abstract read
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Eline KroezeDepartment Health Services and Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4730-3178
Robbert HuijsmanDepartment Health Services and Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9776-129X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Cooperation is key to provide integrated dementia care. However, different kinds of (personal and organisational) interests will affect collaboration in integrated dementia care (IDC) networks. Hence, it is crucial to understand how interests influence relations in IDC-networks in order to shape future policies. Methods: A sequential mixed methods single case study design was used, in three phases: a Social Network Analysis (SNA) based on data from questionnaires (n = 24-26), explorative interviews with network partners (n = 14) and a focus group with network coordinators (n = 7) to explore the conceptual generalisability of the single case of the IDC-network. Results: The SNA revealed that highly connected organisations were often established care organisations that deliver case management, while smaller care organisations or welfare organisations tend to be less connected. Care-related, strategic, and financial interests influence participation of organisations in the IDC-network, while personal intrinsic motivations determine a representative's contribution to the network. Especially conflicting interests strongly influence the network structure. Discussion and conclusion: We conclude that conflicting interests in IDC-networks stand in the way of reaching the collective goal of an IDC-network, i.e., optimising the wellbeing of people with dementia and their informal caregivers in the region. Thus, IDC-networks should act to manage, resolve and prevent disputes arising from conflicting interests.

Indexed as

integrated care networkinterestsmixed methodsperson-centred dementia caresocial network analysis

Identifiers

PMID36060830
PMCPMC9389949

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.