↓ Skip to main content

Context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for diabetes mellitus type 2: a systematic review

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for diabetes mellitus type 2: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1231-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loraine Busetto, Katrien Ger Luijkx, Arianne Mathilda Josephus Elissen, Hubertus Johannes Maria Vrijhoef

Abstract

Integrated care interventions for chronic conditions can lead to improved outcomes, but it is not clear when and why this is the case. This study aims to answer the following two research questions: First, what are the context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes? Second, what are the relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes? A systematic literature search was conducted for the period 2003-2013 in Cochrane and PubMed. Articles were included when they focussed on integrated care and type 2 diabetes, and concerned empirical research analysing the implementation of an intervention. Data extraction was performed using a common data extraction table. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The CMO model (context + mechanism = outcome) was used to study the relationship between context factors (described by the barriers and facilitators encountered in the implementation process and categorised at the six levels of the Implementation Model), mechanisms (defined as intervention types and described by their number of Chronic Care Model (sub-)components) and outcomes (the intentional and unintentional effects triggered by mechanism and context). Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Most reported barriers to the implementation process were found at the organisational context level and most facilitators at the social context level. Due to the low number of articles reporting comparable quantitative outcome measures or in-depth qualitative information, it was not possible to make statements about the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes. Efficient resource allocation should entail increased investments at the organisational context level where most barriers are expected to occur. It is likely that investments at the social context level will also help to decrease the development of barriers at the organisational context level, especially by increasing staff involvement and satisfaction. If future research is to adequately inform practice and policy regarding the impact of these efforts on health outcomes, focus on the actual relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes should be actively incorporated into study designs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 46 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 14%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 44 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,899,753
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,562
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,945
of 401,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#36
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 401,133 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.