Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37661248›Full record

SynthesisBMC primary care2023

Examining nursing processes in primary care settings using the Chronic Care Model: an umbrella review.

Emilie Dufour, Jolianne Bolduc, Jérôme Leclerc-Loiselle, Martin Charette, Isabelle Dufour, Denis Roy, Andrée-Anne Poirier, Arnaud Duhoux

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Emilie DufourFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. emilie.dufour.3@umontreal.ca.
Jolianne BolducÉcole de santé publique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Jérôme Leclerc-LoiselleSchool of Nursing, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Martin CharetteSchool of Nursing, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Isabelle DufourDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Denis RoyCommissaire à la santé et au bien-être, Gouvernement du Québec, Montréal, Canada.
Andrée-Anne PoirierFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
Arnaud DuhouxFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Université de Montréal · CAUniversité de Sherbrooke · CAGovernment of Quebec · CAMcGill University · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile there is clear evidence that nurses can play a significant role in responding to the needs of populations with chronic conditions, there is a lack of consistency between and within primary care settings in the implementation of nursing processes for chronic disease management. Previous reviews have focused either on a specific model of care, populations with a single health condition, or a specific type of nurses. Since primary care nurses are involved in a wide range of services, a comprehensive perspective of effective nursing processes across primary care settings and chronic health conditions could allow for a better understanding of how to support them in a broader way across the primary care continuum. This systematic overview aims to provide a picture of the nursing processes and their characteristics in chronic disease management as reported in empirical studies, using the Chronic Care Model (CCM) conceptual approach.

methodsWe conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews published between 2005 and 2021 based on the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 tool.

resultsTwenty-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included, covering 394 primary studies. The methodological quality of most reviews was moderate. Self-care support processes show the most consistent positive outcomes across different conditions and primary care settings. Case management and nurse-led care show inconsistent outcomes. Most reviews report on the clinical components of the Chronic Care Model, with little mention of the decision support and clinical information systems components.

conclusionsPlacing greater emphasis on decision support and clinical information systems could improve the implementation of nursing processes. While the need for an interdisciplinary approach to primary care is widely promoted, it is important that this approach not be viewed solely from a clinical perspective. The organization of care and resources need to be designed to support contributions from all providers to optimize the full range of services available to patients with chronic conditions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021220004.

Indexed as

Case ManagementLong-Term CareAcademies and InstitutesContinuity of Patient CareHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicChronic care modelChronic diseaseCommunity CareNurse-led careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37661248
PMCPMC10476383
OpenAlexW4386398313

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.