Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36333794›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Identifying complex patients in family medicine for potential benefit from a case manager: a short questionnaire derived from the INTERMED Self-Assessment (IMSA) questionnaire.

Christine Cohidon, Emilie Gallay, Pascal Wild, Friedrich Stiefel, Céline Bourquin, Nicolas Senn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Content validity testing of the INTERMED Self-Assessment in a sample of adults with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatology healthcare providers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christine CohidonDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and General Medicine (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. christine.cohidon@unisante.ch.
Emilie GallayDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and General Medicine (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pascal WildIndependent statistician, Nancy, France.
Friedrich StiefelPsychiatric Liaison Service, Lausanne University Hospital and Lausanne University, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Céline BourquinPsychiatric Liaison Service, Lausanne University Hospital and Lausanne University, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas SennDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and General Medicine (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CHCentre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate how useful the Intermed-Self Assessment (IMSA) questionnaire and its components were for identifying which patient candidates would benefit most from case management (CM) in general practice.

methodsThe study was carried out in a group family medicine practice in Lausanne comprising seven GPs and four medical assistants, from February to April 2019. All the patients attending the practice between February and April 2019 were invited to complete the IMSA questionnaire. Additionally, their GPs were asked for their opinions on the potential benefits of each patient being assigned a case manager. Each IMSA item's value has been assessed as a predictor of GPs' opinions by using multivariate logistic models. A score including items retained as predictor was built.

resultsThree hundred and thirty one patients participated in the study (participation rate: 62%). Three items from the 20 item IMSA were sufficient to predict GPs' opinions about whether their patients could be expected to benefit if assigned a case manager. Those items addressed the patient's existing chronic diseases (item1), quality of life in relation to existing diseases (item 3), and their social situation (item 9). Using these three items as a score, a cut-off at 4 gave a sensitivity of 70% (ability to correctly identify patients who could benefit from a CM) and specificity of 73% (ability to correctly identify patients who should not benefit from a CM) and concerned about one patient in two.

conclusionIdentifying complex patients suitable for case management remains a challenge for primary care professionals. This paper describes a novel approach using a structured process of combining the results of standardized tools such as the one defined in this study, and the experience of the primary care team.

Indexed as

Case ManagersSelf-AssessmentFamily PracticeHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesCase managementComplex patientsFamily medicineIntermed-SA tool

Identifiers

PMID36333794
PMCPMC9636696
OpenAlexW4308177976

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.