Cited by 42Chronic Disease Management StrategiesClinical practice guidelines implementationPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 201 of the 201 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Person-Centered Models for Cardiovascular Care: A Review of the Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Open access
Rossi, Laura P., Granger, Bradi B., Bruckel, Jeffrey T., Crabbe, Deborah L., Graven, Lucinda J., Newlin, Kimberly S., Streur, Megan M., Vadiveloo, Maya K., Walton-Moss, Benita Jeanne, Warden, Bruce A., Volgman, Annabelle Santos, Lydston, Melissa, on behalf of the American Heart Association Complex Cardiovascular Patient and Family Care Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research·2023·Circulation

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and globally. Disease burden continues to escalate despite technological advances associated with improved life expectancy and quality of life. As a result, longer life is associated with multiple chronic cardiovascular conditions. Clinical guidelines provide recommendations without considering prevalent scenarios of multimorbidity and health system complexities that affect practical adoption. The diversity of personal preferences, cultures, and lifestyles that make up one’s social and environmental context is often overlooked in ongoing care planning for symptom management and health behavior support, hindering adoption and compromising patient outcomes, particularly in groups at high risk. The purpose of this scientific statement was to describe the characteristics and reported outcomes in existing person-centered care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions. We conducted a scoping review using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2022. A range of study designs with a defined aim to systematically evaluate care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions were included. Models were selected on the basis of their stated use of evidence-based guidelines, clinical decision support tools, systematic evaluation processes, and inclusion of the patient’s perspective in defining the plan of care. Findings reflected variation in methodological approach, outcome measures, and care processes used across models. Evidence to support optimal care delivery models remains limited by inconsistencies in approach, variation in reimbursement, and inability of health systems to meet the needs of patients with chronic, complex cardiovascular conditions.

Overview

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 · 10.1161/cir.0000000000001141

Cites

201 of 201 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Items 201–201 of 201

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Accessed April 25 2022. https://www.covidence.org/
  2. Qian, C, Zhong, D, Shen, Y, Du, Q. Evaluation of clinical efficacy of transitional care mode for patients with strokes. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2019;12:981–988.
  3. 10.7249/RR1274 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 42

Metadata

Authors
Rossi, L. P., Granger, B. B., Bruckel, J. T., Crabbe, D. L., Graven, L. J., Newlin, K. S., Streur, M. M., Vadiveloo, M. K., Walton-Moss, B. J., Warden, B. A., Volgman, A. S., Lydston, M., & on behalf of the American Heart Association Complex Cardiovascular Patient and Family Care Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research
Venue
Circulation
Published
2023-08-08
Volume
148
Issue
6
Pages
512-542
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W4383711226
Cited by
42
References
201
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 4
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
person-centred care, multimorbidity, chronic cardiovascular disease, patient preferences, shared decision-making, clinical decision support, symptom management, health system complexity, care planning, patient outcomes
MeSH terms
American Heart Association, Cardiovascular Diseases, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Palliative Care, Quality of Life, United States

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