Cited by 606Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesClinical practice guidelines implementation

Integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients: a review of systematic reviews

Ouwens, M.·2005·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

Objective To investigate effectiveness, definitions, and components of integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients on the basis of systematic reviews. Design Literature review from January 1996 to May 2004. Main measures Definitions and components of integrated care programmes and all effects reported on the quality of care. Results Searches in the Medline and Cochrane databases identified 13 systematic reviews of integrated care programmes for chronically ill patients. Despite considerable heterogeneity in interventions, patient populations, and processes and outcomes of care, integrated care programmes seemed to have positive effects on the quality of patient care. No consistent definitions were present for the management of patients with chronic illnesses. In all the reviews the aims of integrated care programmes were very similar, namely reducing fragmentation and improving continuity and coordination of care, but the focus and content of the programmes differed widely. The most common components of integrated care programmes were self-management support and patient education, often combined with structured clinical follow-up and case management; a multidisciplinary patient care team; multidisciplinary clinical pathways and feedback, reminders, and education for professionals. Conclusion Integrated care programmes seemed to have positive effects on the quality of care. However, integrated care programmes have widely varying definitions and components and failu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/intqhc/mzi016

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ouwens, M.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Ouwens, M.
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
2005-04-01
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
141-146
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W2171647259
Cited by
606
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 38
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
chronic disease, quality of care, continuity of care, care coordination, care fragmentation, self-management support, patient education, case management, multidisciplinary team, care pathways
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Chronic Disease, Health Services Research, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Databases, Bibliographic, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Disease Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review