↓ Skip to main content

Evaluación de la efectividad de un programa de atención integrada y proactiva a pacientes crónicos complejos

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
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
Evaluación de la efectividad de un programa de atención integrada y proactiva a pacientes crónicos complejos
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.07.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordi Coderch, Xavier Pérez-Berruezo, Inma Sánchez-Pérez, Elvira Sánchez, Pere Ibern, Marc Pérez, Marc Carreras, José M. Inoriza

Abstract

To assess the effectiveness of a proactive and integrated care programme to adjust the use of health resources by chronic complex patients (CCP) identified as potential high consumers according to a predictive model based on prior use and morbidity. Randomized controlled clinical trial with three parallel groups of CCP: a blinded control group (GC), usual care; a partial intervention group (GIP) reported in the EMR; a total intervention group (GIT), also reported to primary care (PC). Conducted in an integrated health care organization (IHCO), N=128,281 individuals in 2011. Dependent variables: PC visits, emergency attention, hospitalizations, pharmaceutical cost and death. intervention group, age, sex, area of residence, morbidity (by clinical risk group) and recurrence as CCP. ANOVA, student's t test; logistic and multiple linear regressions at the 95% confidence level. 4,236 CCP included for the first intervention year and 4,223 for the second; recurrence as CCP 72%. Mean age 73.2 years, 54.2% women and over 70% with 2 or more chronic diseases. The number of PC visits was significantly higher for GIT than for GIP and GC. The hospital stays were significantly lower in GIP. This effect was observed in the first year and in the second year only in the new CCP. The general indicators of the IHCO were good, before and during the intervention. A high standard of quality, previous and during the study, and the inevitable contamination between groups, hindered the assessment of the marginal effectiveness of the program.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 25 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 25%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 28 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,854,998
of 12,519,100 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#328
of 479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,600
of 283,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,100 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 479 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 283,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.