↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in chronic disease management

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
346 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Effectiveness of shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in chronic disease management
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004910.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Smith, Susan M, Allwright, Shane, O'Dowd, Tom, Smith, S M, Allwright, S, O'Dowd, T

Abstract

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than either primary or specialty care alone. It has been defined as the joint participation of primary care physicians and specialty care physicians in the planned delivery of care, informed by an enhanced information exchange over and above routine discharge and referral notices. It has the potential to offer improved quality and coordination of care delivery across the primary-specialty care interface and to improve outcomes for patients. To determine the effectiveness of shared-care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary-specialty care interface. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register (and the database of studies awaiting assessment); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (from 1966); EMBASE (from 1980) and CINAHL (from 1982). We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of shared-care interventions for chronic disease management. The participants were primary care providers, specialty care providers and patients. The outcomes included physical health outcomes, mental health outcomes, and psychosocial health outcomes, treatment satisfaction, measures of care delivery including participation in services, delivery of care and prescribing of appropriate medications, and costs of shared care. Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Twenty studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management were identified, 19 of which were randomised controlled trials. The majority of studies examined complex multifaceted interventions and were of relatively short duration. The results were mixed. Overall there were no consistent improvements in physical or mental health outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, psychosocial measures including measures of disability and functioning, hospital admissions, default or participation rates, recording of risk factors and satisfaction with treatment. However, there were clear improvements in prescribing in the studies that considered this outcome. The methodological quality of studies varied considerably with only a minority of studies of high-quality design. Cost data were limited and difficult to interpret across studies. This review indicates that there is, at present, insufficient evidence to demonstrate significant benefits from shared care apart from improved prescribing. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may partially account for this lack of evidence. This review indicates that there is no evidence to support the widespread introduction of shared care services at present. Future shared-care interventions should only be developed within research settings and with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and the need to carry out longer studies to test the effectiveness and sustainability of shared care over time.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 346 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
United Kingdom 6 2%
Germany 2 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 317 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 21%
Researcher 64 18%
Student > Master 56 16%
Other 22 6%
Student > Postgraduate 21 6%
Other 77 22%
Unknown 35 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 166 48%
Psychology 33 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 9%
Social Sciences 31 9%
Computer Science 7 2%
Other 32 9%
Unknown 45 13%