Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41660049›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

An Evaluation of the Structure of an Integrated Regional Remote Care Management Program for Patients with Selected Chronic Diseases in Canada.

Diedron Lewis, Karin Swift, Sarah Weberman

Abstract readCase Reports
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Diedron LewisDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4227-7550
Karin SwiftMississaugua Health Ontario Health Team, Mississaugua, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah WebermanConnected Care Halton Ontario Health Team, Halton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of Remote Care Management (RCM) programs in Ontario has increased; however, many have not been objectively evaluated based on their structure and performance. Objective: This study demonstrates how the core structure of the RCM model, developed by the Connected Care Halton Ontario Health Team (CCHOHT) with Halton Healthcare Services and Ontario Health atHome, aligns with the RCM recommendations and evaluation tool from the Ontario Ministry of Health (OMH). The focus is specifically on the CCHOHT's RCM program for chronic diseases. Method: This study presents the CCHOHT's RCM model to demonstrate the degree to which it is consistent with the recommendations for developing RCM programs forwarded by the OMH. It also evaluates the CCHOHT's current chronic diseases RCM program using the OMH's RCM evaluation taxonomy tool and an amended version of this tool proposed by the authors. The taxonomy is based on four foundational criteria: technology, touch, integration and equity. Results: The CCHOHT's chronic diseases RCM program meets the OMH's four RCM taxonomy criteria. The program is a digital solution that remotely manages patients, provides follow-up communication, and escalates critical cases through a more patient-centred, connected clinical pathway of services and care partners. Conclusion: The CCHOHT's RCM model and its chronic diseases RCM program are built on intersecting principles of RCM and integrated care as articulated by the OMH. The adaptable nature of the RCM model allows it to be extended to other clinical conditions.

Indexed as

digital healthprogram evaluationremote care management

Identifiers

PMID41660049
PMCPMC12880051

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.