↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of integrated care interventions in improving patient quality of life (QoL) for patients with chronic conditions. An overview of the systematic review evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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
The effectiveness of integrated care interventions in improving patient quality of life (QoL) for patients with chronic conditions. An overview of the systematic review evidence
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0765-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Flanagan, Sarah Damery, Gill Combes

Abstract

To determine the effectiveness of integrated care interventions in improving the Quality of Life (QoL) for patients with chronic conditions. A review of the systematic reviews evidence (umbrella review). Medline, Embase, ASSIA, PsychINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Library (including HTA database), DARE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), EPPI-Centre, TRIP and Health Economics Evaluations databases. Reference lists of included reviews were searched for additional references not returned by electronic searches. English language systematic reviews or meta-analyses published since 2000 that assessed the effectiveness of interventions in improving the QoL of patients with chronic conditions. Two reviewers independently assessed reviews for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. A total of 41 reviews assessed QoL. Twenty one reviews presented quantitative data, 17 reviews were narrative and three were reviews of reviews. The intervention categories included case management, Chronic care model (CCM), discharge management, multidisciplinary teams (MDT), complex interventions, primary vs. secondary care follow-up, and self-management. Taken together, the 41 reviews that assessed QoL provided a mixed picture of the effectiveness of integrated care interventions. Case management interventions showed some positive findings as did CCM interventions, although these interventions were more likely to be effective when they included a greater number of components. Discharge management interventions appeared to be particularly successful for patients with heart failure. MDT and self-management interventions showed a mixed picture. In general terms, interventions were typically more effective in improving condition-specific QoL rather than global QoL. This review provided the first overview of international evidence for the effectiveness of integrated care interventions for improving the QoL for patients with chronic conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 21%
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 69 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 18%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 77 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 24 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,068,517
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#120
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,484
of 321,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#5
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 321,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.