↓ Skip to main content

Collaboration processes and perceived effectiveness of integrated care projects in primary care: a longitudinal mixed-methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Collaboration processes and perceived effectiveness of integrated care projects in primary care: a longitudinal mixed-methods study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1125-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pim P. Valentijn, Dirk Ruwaard, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef, Antoinette de Bont, Rosa Y. Arends, Marc A. Bruijnzeels

Abstract

Collaborative partnerships are considered an essential strategy for integrating local disjointed health and social services. Currently, little evidence is available on how integrated care arrangements between professionals and organisations are achieved through the evolution of collaboration processes over time. The first aim was to develop a typology of integrated care projects (ICPs) based on the final degree of integration as perceived by multiple stakeholders. The second aim was to study how types of integration differ in changes of collaboration processes over time and final perceived effectiveness. A longitudinal mixed-methods study design based on two data sources (surveys and interviews) was used to identify the perceived degree of integration and patterns in collaboration among 42 ICPs in primary care in The Netherlands. We used cluster analysis to identify distinct subgroups of ICPs based on the final perceived degree of integration from a professional, organisational and system perspective. With the use of ANOVAs, the subgroups were contrasted based on: 1) changes in collaboration processes over time (shared ambition, interests and mutual gains, relationship dynamics, organisational dynamics and process management) and 2) final perceived effectiveness (i.e. rated success) at the professional, organisational and system levels. The ICPs were classified into three subgroups with: 'United Integration Perspectives (UIP)', 'Disunited Integration Perspectives (DIP)' and 'Professional-oriented Integration Perspectives (PIP)'. ICPs within the UIP subgroup made the strongest increase in trust-based (mutual gains and relationship dynamics) as well as control-based (organisational dynamics and process management) collaboration processes and had the highest overall effectiveness rates. On the other hand, ICPs with the DIP subgroup decreased on collaboration processes and had the lowest overall effectiveness rates. ICPs within the PIP subgroup increased in control-based collaboration processes (organisational dynamics and process management) and had the highest effectiveness rates at the professional level. The differences across the three subgroups in terms of the development of collaboration processes and the final perceived effectiveness provide evidence that united stakeholders' perspectives are achieved through a constructive collaboration process over time. Disunited perspectives at the professional, organisation and system levels can be aligned by both trust-based and control-based collaboration processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Librarian 4 4%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 9%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 20 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,345,259
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,490
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,734
of 280,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#108
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 280,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.