Title |
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care: protocol for a realist review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, February 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-12 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Rebecca Hardwick, Mark Pearson, Richard Byng, Rob Anderson |
Abstract |
Shared care (an enhanced information exchange over and above routine outpatient letters) is commonly used to improve care coordination and communication between a specialist and primary care services for people with long-term conditions. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care is mixed. Informed decision-making for targeting shared care requires a greater understanding of how it works, for whom it works, in what contexts and why. This protocol outlines how realist review methods can be used to synthesise evidence on shared care for long-term conditions.A further aim of the review is to explore economic evaluations of shared care. Economic evaluations are difficult to synthesise due to problems in accounting for contextual differences that impact on resource use and opportunity costs. Realist review methods have been suggested as a way to overcome some of these issues, so this review will also assess whether realist review methods are amenable to synthesising economic evidence. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 44% |
Spain | 3 | 33% |
Senegal | 1 | 11% |
Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 4% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
Australia | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 92 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 20 | 20% |
Researcher | 16 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
Other | 9 | 9% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
Other | 21 | 21% |
Unknown | 15 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 36% |
Social Sciences | 19 | 19% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
Other | 6 | 6% |
Unknown | 24 | 24% |