Cited by 24Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentChronic Disease Management Strategies

How is the sustainability of chronic disease health programmes empirically measured in hospital and related healthcare services?—a scoping review

Open access
Francis, Linda, Dunt, David, Cadilhac, Dominique A·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: Programmes to address chronic disease are a focus of governments worldwide. Despite growth in ‘implementation science’, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding the best means to measure sustainability. The aim of this review was to summarise current practice for measuring sustainability outcomes of chronic disease health programmes, providing guidance for programme planners and future directions for the academic field. Settings: A scoping review of the literature spanning 1985–2015 was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and The Cochrane Library limited to English language and adults. Main search terms included chronic disease, acute care, sustainability, institutionalisation and health planning. A descriptive synthesis was required. Settings included primary care, hospitals, mental health centres and community health. Participants: Programmes included preventing or managing chronic conditions including diabetes, heart disease, depression, respiratory disease, cancer, obesity, dental hygiene and multiple chronic diseases. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Outcome measures included clarifying a sustainability definition, types of methodologies used, timelines for assessment, criteria levels to determine outcomes and how methodology varies between intervention types. Results: Among 153 abstracts retrieved, 87 were retained for full article review and 42 included in the qualitative synthesis. Five definitions for sustainability outcome were identified with ‘maintenance of programme activities’ most frequent. Achieving sustainability was dependent on inter-relationships between various organisational and social contexts supporting a broad scale approach to evaluation. An increasing trend in use of mixed methods designs over multiple time points to determine sustainability outcomes was found. Conclusions: Despite the importance and investment in chronic disease programmes, few studies are undertaken to measure sustainability. Methods to evaluate sustainability are diverse with some emerging patterns in measurement found. Use of mixed methods approaches over multiple time points may serve to better guide measurement of sustainability. Consensus on aspects of standardised measurement would promote the future possibility of meta-analytic syntheses.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010944

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • There was a clear dependence on the measure of maintenance of programme activities, which has been previously observed in the literature.

    “Although multiple definitions were found (continuation of the health benefits from an initiative, capacity built in the workforce or community, further development or adaptation and the ability to recover costs), there was a clear dependence on this one measure which has been previously observed in the literature [76].”
  • Relying solely on measuring continuation of programme activities may risk other key sustainability variables being missed.

    “It is important to note that while measuring continuation of programme activities is important to assessing sustainability, relying solely on this measure may risk other key sustainability variables being missed [18, 76].”
  • Until recently, the field lacked a common set of definitions, research questions, measures, and conceptual frameworks.

    “Most notably, until recently, the field has lacked a common set of definitions, research questions, measures, and conceptual frameworks (39, 42, 118).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Francis, L., Dunt, D., & Cadilhac, D. A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (AU)
Corresponding author
Francis, Linda
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-05
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
e010944
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2408892160
Cited by
24
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1001216, 1063761)
  • National Medical Research Council
  • Health and Medical Research Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
sustainability measurement, health program evaluation, implementation science, mixed methods evaluation, outcome measures
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Health Education, Health Promotion, Hospitals, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Organizational Affiliation, Program Evaluation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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