↓ Skip to main content

Implementation challenges in delivering team-based care (‘TEAMcare’) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a public hospital setting: a mixed methods approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation challenges in delivering team-based care (‘TEAMcare’) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a public hospital setting: a mixed methods approach
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1592-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Belinda Cochrane, Jann Foster, Robert Boyd, Evan Atlantis

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considered a multisystem disease, in which comorbidities feature prominently. COPD guidelines recommend holistic assessment and management of relevant comorbid diseases but there is limited information as to how this is best achieved. This pilot study aimed to explore the views of stakeholders, including patients and the healthcare team, on the feasibility, acceptability and barriers to a collaborative, multidisciplinary team-based care intervention ('TEAMcare') to improve health outcomes in COPD patients, within the context of a local hospital outpatient clinic. A mixed methods study design was used. A COPD care algorithm was developed based on the Australasian guidelines, COPDX. COPD participants were consecutively recruited from an outer metropolitan hospital's respiratory clinic. Participants attended for follow up visits at 5 and 10 months to ascertain clinical status, algorithm compliance and to review and revise management recommendations. The intervention was conducted using existing resources, involving collaboration with general practice and the publicly-funded local chronic disease management programme (Medicare Local). Stakeholders provided qualitative feedback about the intervention in terms of feasibility, acceptability and barriers via structured and semi-structured interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis to identify key concepts and themes. The study protocol was abandoned prematurely due to clear lack of feasibility. Of 12 participants, 4 withdrew and none completed pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The main reasons for non-participation or study withdrawal related to reluctance to attend PR (6 of 16) and the burden of increased appointments (4 of 16). PR conflicted with employment hours, which presented problems for some participants. Similarly, themes that emerged from qualitative data indicate healthcare provider perception of deficiencies in funding (for infrastructure and staffing). Health literacy, motivation, organisation and functional impairment were issues for patients. Available data from this small pilot provided valuable insights to inform future design and implementation strategies. Delivering structured team-based care to COPD patients presents challenges. In addition to enhancing health resources for engaging COPD patients, a focus on health literacy and improving health service access, including colocalisation and access outside business hours, may be required. ACTRN12616000342415 ; 16/03/2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 44 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,559,172
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,200
of 7,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,575
of 369,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#151
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.