ArticleInternational journal of integrated care
Identifying Differences in Frames of Reference That Are Hard to Reconcile During the Process of Normative Integration to Deliver Care for People with Multiple Problems: A Mixed-Method Delphi Study in the Netherlands.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to improve support for people with (complex) multiple-problems through social prescribing in a vulnerable neighborhood; professionals', experts-by-experience' and clients' perspectives.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Development, content validation and quality evaluation of a mobile app for oral health surveillance: a modified Delphi approach.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Integrated care is enhanced by integration on system, organizational, professional, and clinical levels including functional and normative integration. Many studies have been done on functional integration on these different levels, less studies focus on how normative integration takes place. In this study, we focus on the question: what differences in frames of refence must be addressed to establish consensus on appropriate care for People with Multiple Problems? Methods: A mixed-method Delphi study was carried out in which professionals and managers regularly involved in care for people with multiple problems (PWMPs) worked towards consensus on appropriate care delivery through the assessment of 15 vignettes representing real trajectories of PWMPs. Results: No consensus on appropriate care delivery was reached on any of the 15 vignettes. Five differences in perspective explained the dissensus: 1) an individual versus a systemic perspective on the client; 2) a focus on self-expressed needs of clients or professionally assessed (normative) needs; 3) client-directed or caregiver-directed care; 4) client as victim of circumstances or responsible for circumstances; 5) a focus on barriers or opportunities. Conclusions: In general, panelists agreed that care for PWMPs should be integrated. However, the further integrated care was to be operationalized in practice the greater the dissensus between panelists emerged. To understand how these differences in perspectives may be overcome to provide care for PWMPs normative integration needs to be studied during actual processes of care delivery.
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.