综合护理干预措施能否加强初级保健并改善慢性病患者的预后?系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Yuqi Zhang, Jonathan Stokes, Laura Anselmi, Peter Bower, Jin Xu
{"title":"综合护理干预措施能否加强初级保健并改善慢性病患者的预后?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yuqi Zhang, Jonathan Stokes, Laura Anselmi, Peter Bower, Jin Xu","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01260-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An increasing number of people live with chronic disease or multi-morbidity. Current consensus is that their care requires an integrated model bringing different professionals together to provide person-centred care. Although primary care has a central role in managing chronic disease, and integration may be important in strengthening this role, previous research has shown insufficient attention to the relationships between primary care and integration. This review summarizes primary care involvement in integrated care interventions and assesses the effect of those interventions on a range of measures of primary care functions and wider outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline and Embase using terms for \"integrated care\", \"chronic disease\" and \"multimorbidity\". We included integrated care interventions involving different levels of care organizations or different care sectors. Risk of bias was appraised, and the contents of integrated care interventions assessed using the Sustainable intEgrated care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing and performancE (SELFIE) conceptual framework. Effectiveness of integrated care interventions was assessed using meta-analysis of primary care functions (access, continuity, comprehensiveness and coordination) and wider outcomes (patient health and mortality, hospital admissions and costs). Sub-group analyses were conducted for different types of primary care involvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 17,752 studies screened, 119 studies on integrated care were identified, of which 69 interventions (58%) involved primary care. Meta-analyses showed significant beneficial effects on two measures of primary care function: access (effect size: 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29) and continuity (effect size: 0.32, 95% CI 0.14-0.50). For wider outcomes, the only statistically significant effect was found on costs (effect size: 0.02, 95% CI 0.02-0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrated care interventions involving primary care can have positive effects on strengthening primary care functions, but these benefits do not necessarily translate consistently to wider outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11702112/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can integrated care interventions strengthen primary care and improve outcomes for patients with chronic diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yuqi Zhang, Jonathan Stokes, Laura Anselmi, Peter Bower, Jin Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01260-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An increasing number of people live with chronic disease or multi-morbidity. Current consensus is that their care requires an integrated model bringing different professionals together to provide person-centred care. Although primary care has a central role in managing chronic disease, and integration may be important in strengthening this role, previous research has shown insufficient attention to the relationships between primary care and integration. This review summarizes primary care involvement in integrated care interventions and assesses the effect of those interventions on a range of measures of primary care functions and wider outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline and Embase using terms for \\\"integrated care\\\", \\\"chronic disease\\\" and \\\"multimorbidity\\\". We included integrated care interventions involving different levels of care organizations or different care sectors. Risk of bias was appraised, and the contents of integrated care interventions assessed using the Sustainable intEgrated care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing and performancE (SELFIE) conceptual framework. Effectiveness of integrated care interventions was assessed using meta-analysis of primary care functions (access, continuity, comprehensiveness and coordination) and wider outcomes (patient health and mortality, hospital admissions and costs). Sub-group analyses were conducted for different types of primary care involvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 17,752 studies screened, 119 studies on integrated care were identified, of which 69 interventions (58%) involved primary care. Meta-analyses showed significant beneficial effects on two measures of primary care function: access (effect size: 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29) and continuity (effect size: 0.32, 95% CI 0.14-0.50). For wider outcomes, the only statistically significant effect was found on costs (effect size: 0.02, 95% CI 0.02-0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Integrated care interventions involving primary care can have positive effects on strengthening primary care functions, but these benefits do not necessarily translate consistently to wider outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11702112/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01260-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01260-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:越来越多的人患有慢性疾病或多病。目前的共识是,他们的护理需要一个综合模式,将不同的专业人员聚集在一起,提供以人为本的护理。虽然初级保健在管理慢性病方面起着核心作用,而整合可能在加强这一作用方面很重要,但先前的研究表明,对初级保健与整合之间的关系关注不足。这篇综述总结了初级保健在综合护理干预中的作用,并评估了这些干预措施对初级保健功能和更广泛结果的一系列测量的影响。方法:使用“综合护理”、“慢性疾病”和“多病”等术语在Medline和Embase上进行检索。我们纳入了涉及不同级别护理组织或不同护理部门的综合护理干预措施。评估偏倚风险,并使用可持续综合护理模型对多发病综合护理干预的内容进行评估:交付、融资和绩效(SELFIE)概念框架。通过对初级保健功能(可及性、连续性、综合性和协调性)和更广泛的结果(患者健康和死亡率、住院率和费用)的荟萃分析,评估了综合护理干预措施的有效性。对不同类型的初级保健参与进行亚组分析。结果:从筛选的17,752项研究中,确定了119项综合护理研究,其中69项干预措施(58%)涉及初级保健。荟萃分析显示,对初级保健功能的两项测量有显著的有益影响:可及性(效应量:0.17,95% CI 0.05-0.29)和连续性(效应量:0.32,95% CI 0.14-0.50)。对于更广泛的结果,唯一有统计学意义的影响是在成本上(效应量:0.02,95% CI 0.02-0.03)。结论:包括初级保健在内的综合护理干预措施可以对加强初级保健功能产生积极影响,但这些好处不一定能持续转化为更广泛的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can integrated care interventions strengthen primary care and improve outcomes for patients with chronic diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: An increasing number of people live with chronic disease or multi-morbidity. Current consensus is that their care requires an integrated model bringing different professionals together to provide person-centred care. Although primary care has a central role in managing chronic disease, and integration may be important in strengthening this role, previous research has shown insufficient attention to the relationships between primary care and integration. This review summarizes primary care involvement in integrated care interventions and assesses the effect of those interventions on a range of measures of primary care functions and wider outcomes.

Methods: We searched Medline and Embase using terms for "integrated care", "chronic disease" and "multimorbidity". We included integrated care interventions involving different levels of care organizations or different care sectors. Risk of bias was appraised, and the contents of integrated care interventions assessed using the Sustainable intEgrated care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing and performancE (SELFIE) conceptual framework. Effectiveness of integrated care interventions was assessed using meta-analysis of primary care functions (access, continuity, comprehensiveness and coordination) and wider outcomes (patient health and mortality, hospital admissions and costs). Sub-group analyses were conducted for different types of primary care involvement.

Results: From 17,752 studies screened, 119 studies on integrated care were identified, of which 69 interventions (58%) involved primary care. Meta-analyses showed significant beneficial effects on two measures of primary care function: access (effect size: 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29) and continuity (effect size: 0.32, 95% CI 0.14-0.50). For wider outcomes, the only statistically significant effect was found on costs (effect size: 0.02, 95% CI 0.02-0.03).

Conclusions: Integrated care interventions involving primary care can have positive effects on strengthening primary care functions, but these benefits do not necessarily translate consistently to wider outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信