↓ Skip to main content

Factors influencing the implementation of chronic care models: A systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, August 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Factors influencing the implementation of chronic care models: A systematic literature review
Published in
BMC Family Practice, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0319-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carol Davy, Jonathan Bleasel, Hueiming Liu, Maria Tchan, Sharon Ponniah, Alex Brown

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of chronic disease faced by both developed and developing countries is of considerable concern to a number of international organisations. Many of the interventions to address this concern within primary healthcare settings are based on the chronic care model (CCM). The implementation of complex interventions such as CCMs requires careful consideration and planning. Success depends on a number of factors at the healthcare provider, team, organisation and system levels. The aim of this systematic review was to systematically examine the scientific literature in order to understand the facilitators and barriers to implementing CCMs within a primary healthcare setting. This review focused on both quantitative and qualitative studies which included patients with chronic disease (cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic respiratory disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression and HIV/AIDS) receiving care in primary healthcare settings, as well as primary healthcare providers such as doctors, nurses and administrators. Papers were limited to those published in English between 1998 and 2013. The search returned 3492 articles. The majority of these studies were subsequently excluded based on their title or abstract because they clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review. A total of 226 full text articles were obtained and a further 188 were excluded as they did not meet the criteria. Thirty eight published peer-reviewed articles were ultimately included in this review. Five primary themes emerged. In addition to ensuring appropriate resources to support implementation and sustainability, the acceptability of the intervention for both patients and healthcare providers contributed to the success of the intervention. There was also a need to prepare healthcare providers for the implementation of a CCM, and to support patients as the way in which they receive care changes. This systematic review demonstrated the importance of considering human factors including the influence that different stakeholders have on the success or otherwise of the implementing a CCM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 227 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 14%
Researcher 31 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Other 19 8%
Other 58 25%
Unknown 45 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 19%
Social Sciences 14 6%
Psychology 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 48 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 25 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,357,366
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#116
of 1,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,368
of 266,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#3
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 266,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 95% of its contemporaries.