↓ Skip to main content

Disruptive Models in Primary Care: Caring for High-Needs, High-Cost Populations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% 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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Disruptive Models in Primary Care: Caring for High-Needs, High-Cost Populations
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3945-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Hochman, Steven M. Asch

Abstract

Starfield and colleagues have suggested four overarching attributes of good primary care: "first-contact access for each need; long-term person- (not disease) focused care; comprehensive care for most health needs; and coordinated care when it must be sought elsewhere." As this series on reinventing primary care highlights, there is a compelling need for new care delivery models that would advance these objectives. This need is particularly urgent for high-needs, high-cost (HNHC) populations. By definition, HNHC patients require extensive attention and consume a disproportionate share of resources, and as a result they strain traditional office-based primary care practices. In this essay, we offer a clinical vignette highlighting the challenges of caring for HNHC populations. We then describe two categories of primary care-based approaches for managing HNHC populations: complex case management, and specialized clinics focused on HNHC patients. Although complex case management programs can be incorporated into or superimposed on the traditional primary care system, such efforts often fail to engage primary care clinicians and HNHC patients, and proven benefits have been modest to date. In contrast, specialized clinics for HNHC populations are more disruptive, as care for HNHC patients must be transferred to a multidisciplinary team that can offer enhanced care coordination and other support. Such specialized clinics may produce more substantial benefits, though rigorous evaluation of these programs is needed. We conclude by suggesting policy reforms to improve care for HNHC populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 21%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,229,442
of 25,014,758 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,001
of 8,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,642
of 317,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#18
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,014,758 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 317,762 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 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.