1 / 10

Collaboration and its outcomes in primary care compared internationally

Collaboration and its outcomes in primary care compared internationally. A systematic literature review. Sanneke Schepman Johan Hansen Ronald Batenburg Dinny de Bakker Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL) 4 September 2012. Background. What is already known ?

nieve
Download Presentation

Collaboration and its outcomes in primary care compared internationally

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Collaboration and its outcomes in primary care compared internationally A systematic literature review Sanneke Schepman Johan Hansen Ronald Batenburg Dinny de Bakker Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL) 4 September 2012

  2. Background What is alreadyknown? Lots of articlesdescribecollaboration in primary care anditsoutcomes, but the “black box” is notopen yet Therefore we conducted a systematicliterature review toseeif we couldfind out • howcertainelements of multidisciplinarycollaboration in primary health care relatetooutcomesforpatientsand professionals

  3. Search strategy We searchedPubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE for relevant studies. Search terms: Inclusion criteria: • Middle or high incomecountries • Studies withquantitative data or literature reviews OR AND

  4. Studies identified (n=2760) MEDLINE (Pubmed): n= 2172 CINAHL: n= 326 Embase: n= 115 Cochrane: n= 147 Methods Duplicate studies excluded: n= 243 Selection process Potentially relevant studies screened for retrieval: n= 2507 Studies excluded based on title (n=1742) and abstract (n=652) Reasons abstract exclusion:- Sector n= 154 - Subject n= 218- Countries n= 3- Methods n= 205 Studies retrieved for more detailed information:n= 113 Studies excluded based on full text (n= 29) Reasons: - Subject n= 17 - No outcomes n= 7 - Methods (quality) n= 5 Studies ultimately included in the review:Included= 25Waiting for second opinion= 18Pending= 34 Literature reviews:n= 2* 4

  5. Year of publication and origin of the studies (n= 25) Europe laggingbehind? No studies before 2000 on this topic?

  6. Studydesigns

  7. Collaboration (n= 25 studies) * There was 1 study where outcomes were significant but negatively associated with the activity.

  8. The outcomes of the collaboration (top 10):

  9. What’s next? • Describe structural characteristics of the collaboration • Linking collaborative activities with outcomes

  10. Key messages • Development of care plans and multidisciplinary meetings is popular and seems to be successful in more than half of the cases. • Objective outcomes for patients seem to improve more often • Few research on outcomes of collaboration for professionals • Inconclusiveevidencefor (positive) effects of multidisciplinarycollaboration

More Related