Cited by 204Health Policy Implementation SciencePrimary Care and Health OutcomesClinical practice guidelines implementation

Facilitators and barriers of implementing the chronic care model in primary care: a systematic review

Open access
Kadu, Mudathira K, Stolee, Paul·2015·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a framework developed to redesign care delivery for individuals living with chronic diseases in primary care. The CCM and its various components have been widely adopted and evaluated, however, little is known about different primary care experiences with its implementation, and the factors that influence its successful uptake. The purpose of this review is to synthesize findings of studies that implemented the CCM in primary care, in order to identify facilitators and barriers encountered during implementation. METHODS: This study identified English-language, peer-reviewed research articles, describing the CCM in primary care settings. Searches were performed in three data bases: Web of Knowledge, Pubmed and Scopus. Article abstracts and titles were read based on whether they met the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies published after 2003 that described or evaluated the implementation of the CCM; 2) the care setting was primary care; 3) the target population of the study was adults over the age of 18 with chronic conditions. Studies were categorized by reference, study design and methods, participants and setting, study objective, CCM components used, and description of the intervention. The next stage of data abstraction involved qualitative analysis of cited barriers and facilitators using the Consolidating Framework for Research Implementation. RESULTS: This review identified barriers and facilitators of implementation across various primary care settings in 22 studies. The major emerging themes were those related to the inner setting of the organization, the process of implementation and characteristics of the individual healthcare providers. These included: organizational culture, its structural characteristics, networks and communication, implementation climate and readiness, presence of supportive leadership, and provider attitudes and beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of assessing organizational capacity and needs prior to and during the implementation of the CCM, as well as gaining a better understanding of health care providers' and organizational perspective.

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 · 10.1186/s12875-014-0219-0

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Research papers more often tend to report clinical level variables than to assess organisational factors such as professional culture, governance, financial management, communication patterns, implementation readiness, or presence of supportive leadership.

    “Research papers more often tend to report clinical level variables (such as information given to patients to support self-management) than to assess organisational factors, such as professional culture, governance, financial management, communication patterns, implementation readiness, or presence of supportive leadership 35 .”
  • In other similar studies, positive effects have been shown for people with depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, diabetes and heart failure.

    “In other similar studies, positive effects have been shown for people with depression 34 35 , chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 35 , asthma 35 36 , diabetes 35 36 and heart failure 36 .”

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

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [21]Iles V Sutherland K Organisational change: a review for health care managers, professionals and researchers National Coordinating Center for National Health Service Delivery and Organization 2001 12 68

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kadu, M. K., & Stolee, P.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Stolee, Paul
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2015-02-06
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
12-12
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006530818
Cited by
204
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Waterloo
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • 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 Care Model, implementation barriers, implementation facilitators, primary care, chronic care, organizational culture, implementation climate, leadership, provider attitudes, organizational capacity
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Humans, Organizational Innovation, Patient Care Management, Primary Health Care, Organizational Culture, Models, Organizational, Needs Assessment, Quality Improvement

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