缩小质量差距:重新审视科学现状(第7卷:残疾人成果的质量改进测量)。

Mary Butler, Robert L Kane, Sheryl Larson, Molly Moore Jeffery, Mike Grove
{"title":"缩小质量差距:重新审视科学现状(第7卷:残疾人成果的质量改进测量)。","authors":"Mary Butler,&nbsp;Robert L Kane,&nbsp;Sheryl Larson,&nbsp;Molly Moore Jeffery,&nbsp;Mike Grove","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine how health care outcomes for general medical care have been assessed for people with disabilities within the rubrics of care coordination and quality improvement.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE®, PsychINFO, ERIC, and CIRRIE through March 27, 2012; hand searches of references from relevant literature and journals. A search of high-quality gray literature sources was also conducted.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>We included all forms of disability except severe and persistent mental illness for all age groups in outpatient and community settings. We focused on outcomes, patient experience, and care coordination process measures. We looked for generic outcome measures rather than disability-condition-specific measures. We also looked for examples of outcomes used in the context of disability as a complicating condition for a set of basic service needs relevant to the general population, and secondary conditions common to disability populations. Two independent reviewers screened all articles; disagreements were resolved through consensus. Included articles were abstracted to evidence tables and quality-checked by a second reviewer. Data synthesis was qualitative.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15,513 articles were screened; 15 articles were included for general outcome measures and 44 studies for care coordination. A large number of outcome measures have been critically assessed and mapped to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We found no eligible studies of basic medical needs or secondary conditions that examined mixed populations of disabled and nondisabled participants for disability as a complicating condition. Care coordination literature for people with disabilities is relatively new and focuses on initial implementation of interventions rather than assessing the quality of the implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found very few direct examples of work conducted from the perspective of disability as a complicating condition. The sparse literature indicates the early stages of research development. Capturing the disability perspective will require collaboration and coordination of measurement efforts across medical interventions, rehabilitation, and social support provision.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 208.7","pages":"1-112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781164/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 7: quality improvement measurement of outcomes for people with disabilities).\",\"authors\":\"Mary Butler,&nbsp;Robert L Kane,&nbsp;Sheryl Larson,&nbsp;Molly Moore Jeffery,&nbsp;Mike Grove\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine how health care outcomes for general medical care have been assessed for people with disabilities within the rubrics of care coordination and quality improvement.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE®, PsychINFO, ERIC, and CIRRIE through March 27, 2012; hand searches of references from relevant literature and journals. A search of high-quality gray literature sources was also conducted.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>We included all forms of disability except severe and persistent mental illness for all age groups in outpatient and community settings. We focused on outcomes, patient experience, and care coordination process measures. We looked for generic outcome measures rather than disability-condition-specific measures. We also looked for examples of outcomes used in the context of disability as a complicating condition for a set of basic service needs relevant to the general population, and secondary conditions common to disability populations. Two independent reviewers screened all articles; disagreements were resolved through consensus. Included articles were abstracted to evidence tables and quality-checked by a second reviewer. Data synthesis was qualitative.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15,513 articles were screened; 15 articles were included for general outcome measures and 44 studies for care coordination. A large number of outcome measures have been critically assessed and mapped to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We found no eligible studies of basic medical needs or secondary conditions that examined mixed populations of disabled and nondisabled participants for disability as a complicating condition. Care coordination literature for people with disabilities is relatively new and focuses on initial implementation of interventions rather than assessing the quality of the implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found very few direct examples of work conducted from the perspective of disability as a complicating condition. The sparse literature indicates the early stages of research development. Capturing the disability perspective will require collaboration and coordination of measurement efforts across medical interventions, rehabilitation, and social support provision.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 208.7\",\"pages\":\"1-112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781164/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究如何在护理协调和质量改进的范围内评估残疾人的一般医疗保健结果。数据来源:截至2012年3月27日的MEDLINE®、PsychINFO、ERIC和CIRRIE;手工检索相关文献和期刊的参考文献。还进行了高质量灰色文献来源的搜索。回顾方法:我们纳入了门诊和社区中所有年龄组除严重和持续性精神疾病外的所有形式的残疾。我们关注结果、患者体验和护理协调过程措施。我们寻找的是通用的结果指标,而不是针对残疾状况的指标。我们还寻找了残疾作为与一般人群相关的一系列基本服务需求的复杂条件的背景下使用的结果的例子,以及残疾人群常见的次要条件。两名独立审稿人对所有文章进行了筛选;分歧通过协商一致得到解决。纳入的文章被摘录到证据表中,并由第二位审稿人进行质量检查。数据综合是定性的。结果:共筛选15513篇文献;15篇文章被纳入一般结果测量,44篇研究被纳入护理协调。已严格评估了大量成果措施,并将其与国际功能、残疾和健康分类相匹配。我们没有发现关于基本医疗需求或次要条件的合格研究,这些研究检查了残疾和非残疾参与者的混合人群,残疾是一种复杂的条件。针对残疾人的护理协调文献相对较新,主要关注干预措施的初步实施,而不是评估实施的质量。结论:我们发现很少有直接的例子,从残疾作为一个复杂的条件的角度进行的工作。稀疏的文献表明研究发展的早期阶段。从残疾的角度出发,需要在医疗干预、康复和提供社会支助方面进行协作和协调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 7: quality improvement measurement of outcomes for people with disabilities).

Objective: To examine how health care outcomes for general medical care have been assessed for people with disabilities within the rubrics of care coordination and quality improvement.

Data sources: MEDLINE®, PsychINFO, ERIC, and CIRRIE through March 27, 2012; hand searches of references from relevant literature and journals. A search of high-quality gray literature sources was also conducted.

Review methods: We included all forms of disability except severe and persistent mental illness for all age groups in outpatient and community settings. We focused on outcomes, patient experience, and care coordination process measures. We looked for generic outcome measures rather than disability-condition-specific measures. We also looked for examples of outcomes used in the context of disability as a complicating condition for a set of basic service needs relevant to the general population, and secondary conditions common to disability populations. Two independent reviewers screened all articles; disagreements were resolved through consensus. Included articles were abstracted to evidence tables and quality-checked by a second reviewer. Data synthesis was qualitative.

Results: A total of 15,513 articles were screened; 15 articles were included for general outcome measures and 44 studies for care coordination. A large number of outcome measures have been critically assessed and mapped to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We found no eligible studies of basic medical needs or secondary conditions that examined mixed populations of disabled and nondisabled participants for disability as a complicating condition. Care coordination literature for people with disabilities is relatively new and focuses on initial implementation of interventions rather than assessing the quality of the implementation.

Conclusions: We found very few direct examples of work conducted from the perspective of disability as a complicating condition. The sparse literature indicates the early stages of research development. Capturing the disability perspective will require collaboration and coordination of measurement efforts across medical interventions, rehabilitation, and social support provision.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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