ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Integrated Care Model
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Creation of a Laboratory for Statistics and Analysis of Dependence and Chronic Conditions: Protocol for the Bages Territorial Specialization and Competitiveness Project (PECT BAGESS).JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Innovative Health and Social Integrated Care Model Effectiveness to Improve Quality Care for Chronic Patients: A Single Group Assignment Clinical Trial.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We explored the views of the professionals (from primary care and social services) and users (caregivers and patients) who participated in the clinical trial of the Salut+Social integrated care model to identify the implementation barriers and facilitators, to assess the impact on health and wellbeing and to obtain an assessment of the program. A qualitative descriptive study with a pragmatic, utilitarian approach was performed. Participants were recruited by purposive and convenience sampling. A focus group (FG) and in-depth interviews were conducted with professionals and users, respectively. Thematic content analysis was employed. A total of 11 professionals and 8 users participated in the FG and interviews, respectively. Seven themes were identified: (1) contextualizing the previous scenario; (2) achievements of the program from the professionals' perspective; (3) facilitators and barriers of the integrated care model; (4) proposals for improving the integrated care model; (5) users' assessment of the care received within the program framework; (6) users' perception of the impact on health and wellbeing; (7) users' demands for better care. Professionals reported improved coordination between services and highlighted the need for a protocol for emergencies and to strengthen community orientation. Users proposed more frequent home visits. This study shows the acceptability of the new model by professionals and the users' satisfaction with the care received.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.