Cited by 253Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesInterprofessional Education and Collaboration

Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: a meta-review

Open access
Martínez-González, Nahara Anani, Berchtold, Peter, Ullman, Klara, Busato, André, Egger, Matthias·2014·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review systematic reviews and meta-analyses of integrated care programmes in chronically ill patients, with a focus on methodological quality, elements of integration assessed and effects reported. DESIGN: Meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified in Medline (1946-March 2012), Embase (1980-March 2012), CINHAL (1981-March 2012) and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (issue 1, 2012). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methodological quality assessed by the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; elements of integration assessed using a published list of 10 key principles of integration; effects on patient-centred outcomes, process quality, use of healthcare and costs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven systematic reviews were identified; conditions included chronic heart failure (CHF; 12 reviews), diabetes mellitus (DM; seven reviews), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; seven reviews) and asthma (five reviews). The median number of AMSTAR checklist items met was five: few reviewers searched for unpublished literature or described the primary studies and interventions in detail. Most reviews covered comprehensive services across the care continuum or standardization of care through inter-professional teams, but organizational culture, governance structure or financial management were rarely assessed. A majority of reviews found beneficial effects of integration, including reduced hospital admissions and re-admissions (in CHF and DM), improved adherence to treatment guidelines (DM, COPD and asthma) or quality of life (DM). Few reviews showed reductions in costs. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of integrated care programmes were of mixed quality, assessed only some components of integration of care, and showed consistent benefits for some outcomes but not others.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/intqhc/mzu071

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [38]Gensichen J Beyer M Kuver C Primary case based case management for patients with congestive heart failure—a critical review Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2004 98 143 54 15106496
  2. [39]Smith SM Allwright S O'Dowd T Does sharing care across the primary-specialty interface improve outcomes in chronic disease? A systematic review (Brief record) Am J Manag Care 2008 14 213 24 18402514
  3. [40]Becker L Oxman AD Higgins JP Green S Overview of reviews Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews 2009 Oxford The Cochrane Collaboration Version 5.0.02 (Updated September 2009)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martínez-González, N. A., Berchtold, P., Ullman, K., Busato, A., & Egger, M.
Affiliations
University of Bern (CH)
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
2014-08-09
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
561-570
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W2145187093
Cited by
253
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 13 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Bundesamt für Gesundheit
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
Keywords
integrated care, chronic disease, methodological quality of systematic reviews, patient-centered outcomes, hospital readmission, guideline adherence, health care costs, chronic heart failure, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, quality of life
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Comprehensive Health Care, Continuity of Patient Care, Hospitalization, Humans, Patient Care Team, Quality of Health Care, Quality of Life, Organizational Culture, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Systems Integration, Guideline Adherence

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