Health and social care policy in the UK advocates inter-professional working (IPW) to support older people with complex and multiple needs. Whilst there is a growing understanding of what supports IPW, there is a lack of evidence linking IPW to explicit outcomes for older people living in the community. This review aimed to identify the models of IPW that provide the strongest evidence base for practice with community dwelling older people. We searched electronic databases from 1 January 1990-31 March 2008. In December 2010 we updated the findings from relevant systematic reviews identified since 2008. We selected papers describing interventions that involved IPW for community dwelling older people and randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting user-relevant outcomes. Included studies were classified by IPW models (Case Management, Collaboration and Integrated Team) and assessed for risk of bias. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence according to the type of care (interventions delivering acute, chronic, palliative and preventive care) identified within each model of IPW. We retrieved 3211 records and included 37 RCTs which were mapped onto the IPW models: Overall, there is weak evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for IPW, although well-integrated and shared care models improved processes of care and have the potential to reduce hospital or nursing/care home use. Study quality varied considerably and high quality evaluations as well as observational studies are needed to identify the key components of effective IPW in relation to user-defined outcomes. Differences in local contexts raise questions about the applicability of the findings and their implications for practice. We need more information on the outcomes of the process of IPW and evaluations of the effectiveness of different configurations of health and social care professionals for the care of community dwelling older people.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,164,033
of 26,680,103 outputs
Outputs from Health & Social Care in the Community
#589
of 2,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,538
of 188,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health & Social Care in the Community
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,680,103 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,122 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 188,252 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 69% of its contemporaries.
