Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40682521›Full record

ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2025

Evaluating the role of community-based multi-disciplinary teams in integrated health and social care in England: Overview of findings from the Pioneer evaluation and their implications for health and social care integration.

Mary Alison Durand, Gerald Wistow, Mustafa Al Haboubi, Nick Douglas, Bob Erens, Ties Hoomans, Tommaso Manacorda, Robin Miller, Agata Pacho, Lucia Rehackova and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2025. 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. Co-Design of a New Integrated Care Model With People Affected by Huntington's Disease: A Mixed Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    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

13 authors.

Mary Alison DurandAssociate Professor, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2205-4002
Gerald WistowVisiting Professor in Social Policy, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics, and Honorary Professor, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Mustafa Al HaboubiAssistant Professor, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9847-2206
Nick DouglasResearch Fellow, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Bob ErensAssociate Professor, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ties HoomansAssistant Professor, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Tommaso ManacordaResearch Fellow, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Robin MillerProfessor of Collaborative Learning in Health and Social Care, Department of Social Work and Social Care/IMPACT, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2646-5589
Agata PachoResearch Fellow, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0653-5095
Lucia RehackovaResearch Fellow, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4099-7899
Judith SmithProfessor of Health Policy and Management, Health Services Management Centre, School of Social Policy and Society, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4036-4063
Lavanya ThanaResearch Fellow, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8343-5549
Nicholas MaysProfessor of Health Policy and Director, Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9808-8466

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectivesThis paper synthesises the findings of an evaluation of community-based multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs), primarily serving older people with long-term conditions, undertaken as part of a wider evaluation (2015-2022) of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneer Programme (2013-2018) in England. The MDT evaluation was undertaken in two contrasting Pioneers with 11 MDTs covering four models of MDT functioning.MethodsThe synthesis, set against our conceptual framework of MDT functioning, draws principally on the findings of semi-structured interviews with local strategic level health and care leaders, frontline MDT staff, and patients and their informal carers, observations of MDT meetings, and an online survey of MDT staff.ResultsMDTs were seen as an essential means of working towards local health and care integration. While local contexts shaped the precise aims, structure, composition and ways of working of the different MDT models studied, there were strong similarities across the teams in how staff viewed the nature and benefits of MDT working. MDTs were perceived as having the potential to provide more holistic care to patients, speed up access to care, improve access to a wider range of services and enhance care at home. Benefits to staff included better information sharing; reduced duplication of tasks; enhanced collective responsibility and problem-solving, which enriched decision-making; opportunities to learn from, and about, the remits of other professional groups and services; and the erosion of traditional professional hierarchies. However, barriers to MDT working, including the absence of shared patient records, inadequate infrastructure and resources, and concerns about the ability to measure and demonstrate the value of MDT working, were also identified. Patients and their informal carers reported valuing good communication with their health and care providers but often appeared unaware of an MDT's involvement in planning their care. This suggests there is some distance to travel in terms of how MDTs communicate their roles to those they serve.ConclusionsAt the service delivery level, our findings' implications for policy and practice include the need for greater integration across patient records and data systems, and greater investment in specialist services (e.g., housing) currently absent from MDTs. However, our research also highlighted challenges to evaluating the outcomes of 'integration' both as a concept and at the service delivery level. Changes to both the research environment and the approach to evaluation are also warranted.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedPatient Care TeamSocial WorkEnglandHumansIntersectoral CollaborationInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesSystems Integrationcommunity-based multi-disciplinary teamshealth and social care integrationintegrated care and support Pioneerspolicy and programme evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40682521
PMCPMC12423453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.