↓ Skip to main content

What are the effective elements in patient-centered and multimorbidity care? A scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
289 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
What are the effective elements in patient-centered and multimorbidity care? A scoping review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3213-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-Eve Poitras, Marie-Eve Maltais, Louisa Bestard-Denommé, Moira Stewart, Martin Fortin

Abstract

Interventions to improve patient-centered care for persons with multimorbidity are in constant growth. To date, the emphasis has been on two separate kinds of interventions, those based on a patient-centered care approach with persons with chronic disease and the other ones created specifically for persons with multimorbidity. Their effectiveness in primary healthcare is well documented. Currently, none of these interventions have synthesized a patient-centered care approach for care for multimorbidity. The objective of this project is to determine the particular elements of patient-centered interventions and interventions for persons with multimorbidity that are associated with positive health-related outcomes for patients. A scoping review was conducted as the method supports the rapid mapping of the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. A five-stage approach was adopted: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. We searched for interventions for persons with multimorbidity or patient-centered care in primary care. Relevant studies were identified in four systematic reviews (Smith et al. (2012;2016), De Bruin et al. (2012), and Dwamena et al. (2012)). Inductive analysis was performed. Four systematic reviews and 98 original studies were reviewed and analysed. Elements of interventions can be grouped into three main types and clustered into seven categories of interventions: 1) Supporting decision process and evidence-based practice; 2) Providing patient-centered approaches; 3) Supporting patient self-management; 4) Providing case/care management; 5) Enhancing interdisciplinary team approach; 6) Developing training for healthcare providers; and 7) Integrating information technology. Providing patient-oriented approaches, self-management support interventions and developing training for healthcare providers were the most frequent categories of interventions with the potential to result in positive impact for patients with chronic diseases. This scoping review provides evidence for the adaption of patient-centered interventions for patients with multimorbidity. Findings from this scoping review will inform the development of a toolkit to assist chronic disease prevention and management programs in reorienting patient care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 289 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 9%
Researcher 24 8%
Other 19 7%
Other 60 21%
Unknown 94 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 20%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Psychology 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 39 13%
Unknown 96 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,971,031
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,258
of 8,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,141
of 334,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#54
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 334,994 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.