Cited by 219Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

What are the effective elements in patient-centered and multimorbidity care? A scoping review

Open access
Poitras, Marie-Eve, Maltais, Marie-Eve, Bestard-Denommé, Louisa, Stewart, Moira, Fortin, Martin·2018·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve patient-centered care for persons with multimorbidity are in constant growth. To date, the emphasis has been on two separate kinds of interventions, those based on a patient-centered care approach with persons with chronic disease and the other ones created specifically for persons with multimorbidity. Their effectiveness in primary healthcare is well documented. Currently, none of these interventions have synthesized a patient-centered care approach for care for multimorbidity. The objective of this project is to determine the particular elements of patient-centered interventions and interventions for persons with multimorbidity that are associated with positive health-related outcomes for patients. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted as the method supports the rapid mapping of the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. A five-stage approach was adopted: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. We searched for interventions for persons with multimorbidity or patient-centered care in primary care. Relevant studies were identified in four systematic reviews (Smith et al. (2012;2016), De Bruin et al. (2012), and Dwamena et al. (2012)). Inductive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews and 98 original studies were reviewed and analysed. Elements of interventions can be grouped into three main types and clustered into seven categories of interventions: 1) Supporting decision process and evidence-based practice; 2) Providing patient-centered approaches; 3) Supporting patient self-management; 4) Providing case/care management; 5) Enhancing interdisciplinary team approach; 6) Developing training for healthcare providers; and 7) Integrating information technology. Providing patient-oriented approaches, self-management support interventions and developing training for healthcare providers were the most frequent categories of interventions with the potential to result in positive impact for patients with chronic diseases. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides evidence for the adaption of patient-centered interventions for patients with multimorbidity. Findings from this scoping review will inform the development of a toolkit to assist chronic disease prevention and management programs in reorienting patient care.

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/s12913-018-3213-8

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Overall, the concept analysis findings support person-centered care, highlighting increased empowerment of people with mental illness integrated into their biopsychosocial and cultural context.

    “Overall, our findings support the notion of person-centered care, highlighting the increased empowerment of people with mental illness, integrated into their biopsychosocial and cultural context [81,82,83].”

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: 1

  1. [29]Grimshaw J A knowledge synthseis chapter 2010 Ottawa University of Ottawa 56

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Poitras, M.-E., Maltais, M.-E., Bestard-Denommé, L., Stewart, M., & Fortin, M.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2018-06-14
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
446-446
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2807719804
Cited by
219
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
12.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Institute of Health Services and Policy Research (297943)
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 › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
multimorbidity, patient-centered care, primary care, chronic disease management, patient self-management, case management, interdisciplinary teams, health professions education, information technology integration, evidence-based practice, health outcomes
MeSH terms
Multiple Chronic Conditions, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Primary Health Care, Patient-Centered Care, Evidence-Based Practice

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