ArticleThe American journal of managed care2025
Gaps in the coordination of care for older adults with or at risk for cardiovascular disease.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to determine whether patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD risk factors and fragmented care (ie, care spread across multiple providers) perceive any gaps in communication among their providers and whether any gaps are perceived as clinically significant (ie, leading to adverse events). STUDY
designWe conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older with CVD or at least 1 CVD risk factor and highly fragmented ambulatory care (reversed Bice-Boxerman Index score ≥ 0.85) who had been attributed to an accountable care organization in New York, New York.
methodsUsing a previously tested survey instrument, we asked about perceptions of communication among the respondents' providers, any adverse events (drug-drug interactions, duplicate tests, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations), and whether those events were preventable with better communication. We used descriptive statistics.
resultsOf 201 eligible individuals, 96 completed surveys (47.8% response rate). Of those, 94 (97.9%) reported having at least 2 ambulatory visits and at least 2 ambulatory providers in the past year and were included in our analytic sample. The mean (SD) age was 76 (6.8) years; approximately two-thirds (69%) were women. Approximately half of respondents (48%) reported a problem with, or "gap" in, communication among their providers. One in 14 respondents (7%) reported experiencing an adverse event that they thought could have been prevented with better communication.
conclusionsGaps in communication for patients with CVD or CVD risk factors are common and hazardous. Interventions are needed to leverage patients' observations to address gaps in communication before they cause harm.
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.