Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38618043›Full record

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.

Lieke Reinhoudt-den Boer, Robbert Huijsman, Jeroen David Hendrikus van Wijngaarden

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Lieke Reinhoudt-den BoerErasmus University, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7333-5766
Robbert HuijsmanErasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9776-129X
Jeroen David Hendrikus van WijngaardenErasmus School of Health Policy and Management of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8432-6611

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

integrated carenormative integrationpeople with multiple problems

Identifiers

PMID38618043
PMCPMC11012147

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.