↓ Skip to main content

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#44 of 4,857)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
2 policy sources
81 tweeters


36 Dimensions

Readers on

147 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3161-3
Pubmed ID

Susan Baxter, Maxine Johnson, Duncan Chambers, Anthea Sutton, Elizabeth Goyder, Andrew Booth


Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 tweeters 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 20%
Researcher 29 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 22 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Social Sciences 20 14%
Psychology 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 31 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
of 14,320,868 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
of 4,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 275,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,320,868 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 275,489 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them