患者报告的持续性护理和健康结果的衡量标准:系统综述。

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMC primary care Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1186/s12875-024-02545-8
Patrick Burch, Alex Walter, Stuart Stewart, Peter Bower
{"title":"患者报告的持续性护理和健康结果的衡量标准:系统综述。","authors":"Patrick Burch, Alex Walter, Stuart Stewart, Peter Bower","doi":"10.1186/s12875-024-02545-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a considerable amount of research showing an association between continuity of care and improved health outcomes. However, the methods used in most studies examine only the pattern of interactions between patients and clinicians through administrative measures of continuity. The patient experience of continuity can also be measured by using patient reported experience measures. Unlike administrative measures, these can allow elements of continuity such as the presence of information or how joined up care is between providers to be measured. Patient experienced continuity is a marker of healthcare quality in its own right. However, it is unclear if, like administrative measures, patient reported continuity is also linked to positive health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cohort and interventional studies that examined the relationship between patient reported continuity of care and a health outcome were eligible for inclusion. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched in April 2021. Citation searching of published continuity measures was also performed. QUIP and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. A box-score method was used for study synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion. 15 studies measured continuity using a validated, multifactorial questionnaire or the continuity/co-ordination subscale of another instrument. Two studies placed patients into discrete groups of continuity based on pre-defined questions, one used a bespoke questionnaire, one calculated an administrative measure of continuity using patient reported data. Outcome measures examined were quality of life (n = 11), self-reported health status (n = 8), emergency department use or hospitalisation (n = 7), indicators of function or wellbeing (n = 6), mortality (n = 4) and physiological measures (n = 2). Analysis was limited by the relatively small number of hetrogenous studies. The majority of studies showed a link between at least one measure of continuity and one health outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Whilst there is emerging evidence of a link between patient reported continuity and several outcomes, the evidence is not as strong as that for administrative measures of continuity. This may be because administrative measures record something different to patient reported measures, or that studies using patient reported measures are smaller and less able to detect smaller effects. Future research should use larger sample sizes to clarify if a link does exist and what the potential mechanisms underlying such a link could be. When measuring continuity, researchers and health system administrators should carefully consider what type of continuity measure is most appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331683/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient reported measures of continuity of care and health outcomes: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Burch, Alex Walter, Stuart Stewart, Peter Bower\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12875-024-02545-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a considerable amount of research showing an association between continuity of care and improved health outcomes. However, the methods used in most studies examine only the pattern of interactions between patients and clinicians through administrative measures of continuity. The patient experience of continuity can also be measured by using patient reported experience measures. Unlike administrative measures, these can allow elements of continuity such as the presence of information or how joined up care is between providers to be measured. Patient experienced continuity is a marker of healthcare quality in its own right. However, it is unclear if, like administrative measures, patient reported continuity is also linked to positive health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cohort and interventional studies that examined the relationship between patient reported continuity of care and a health outcome were eligible for inclusion. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched in April 2021. Citation searching of published continuity measures was also performed. QUIP and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. A box-score method was used for study synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion. 15 studies measured continuity using a validated, multifactorial questionnaire or the continuity/co-ordination subscale of another instrument. Two studies placed patients into discrete groups of continuity based on pre-defined questions, one used a bespoke questionnaire, one calculated an administrative measure of continuity using patient reported data. Outcome measures examined were quality of life (n = 11), self-reported health status (n = 8), emergency department use or hospitalisation (n = 7), indicators of function or wellbeing (n = 6), mortality (n = 4) and physiological measures (n = 2). Analysis was limited by the relatively small number of hetrogenous studies. The majority of studies showed a link between at least one measure of continuity and one health outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Whilst there is emerging evidence of a link between patient reported continuity and several outcomes, the evidence is not as strong as that for administrative measures of continuity. This may be because administrative measures record something different to patient reported measures, or that studies using patient reported measures are smaller and less able to detect smaller effects. Future research should use larger sample sizes to clarify if a link does exist and what the potential mechanisms underlying such a link could be. When measuring continuity, researchers and health system administrators should carefully consider what type of continuity measure is most appropriate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC primary care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331683/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02545-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02545-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大量研究表明,医疗服务的连续性与健康状况的改善之间存在关联。然而,大多数研究采用的方法只是通过连续性的行政措施来检查患者与临床医生之间的互动模式。患者对连续性的体验也可以通过患者报告的体验指标来衡量。与行政措施不同的是,这些措施可以衡量连续性的要素,如信息的存在或医疗服务提供者之间的联合护理程度。患者体验的连续性本身就是医疗质量的一个标志。然而,目前还不清楚患者报告的连续性是否与行政措施一样,也与积极的健康结果有关:符合纳入条件的研究包括队列研究和干预研究,这些研究考察了患者报告的医疗连续性与健康结果之间的关系。2021 年 4 月,对 Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了检索。此外,还对已发表的连续性措施进行了引文检索。采用 QUIP 和 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估研究质量。研究综述采用盒式评分法:19项研究符合纳入条件。15项研究使用经过验证的多因素问卷或其他工具的连续性/协调性子量表来衡量连续性。两项研究根据预先设定的问题将患者分为不同的连续性组别,一项研究使用定制的问卷,一项研究使用患者报告的数据计算连续性的行政测量值。研究的结果指标包括生活质量(11 例)、自我报告的健康状况(8 例)、急诊室使用率或住院率(7 例)、功能或健康指标(6 例)、死亡率(4 例)和生理指标(2 例)。由于同种异体研究的数量相对较少,因此分析受到限制。大多数研究表明,至少有一项连续性指标与一项健康结果之间存在联系:虽然有新的证据表明患者报告的连续性与几种结果之间存在联系,但证据不如连续性的行政措施有力。这可能是因为行政措施记录的内容与患者报告的措施不同,也可能是因为使用患者报告的措施进行的研究规模较小,无法检测到较小的影响。未来的研究应该使用更大的样本量,以明确是否真的存在联系,以及这种联系的潜在机制是什么。在测量连续性时,研究人员和医疗系统管理者应仔细考虑哪种连续性测量方法最合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Patient reported measures of continuity of care and health outcomes: a systematic review.

Background: There is a considerable amount of research showing an association between continuity of care and improved health outcomes. However, the methods used in most studies examine only the pattern of interactions between patients and clinicians through administrative measures of continuity. The patient experience of continuity can also be measured by using patient reported experience measures. Unlike administrative measures, these can allow elements of continuity such as the presence of information or how joined up care is between providers to be measured. Patient experienced continuity is a marker of healthcare quality in its own right. However, it is unclear if, like administrative measures, patient reported continuity is also linked to positive health outcomes.

Methods: Cohort and interventional studies that examined the relationship between patient reported continuity of care and a health outcome were eligible for inclusion. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched in April 2021. Citation searching of published continuity measures was also performed. QUIP and Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. A box-score method was used for study synthesis.

Results: Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion. 15 studies measured continuity using a validated, multifactorial questionnaire or the continuity/co-ordination subscale of another instrument. Two studies placed patients into discrete groups of continuity based on pre-defined questions, one used a bespoke questionnaire, one calculated an administrative measure of continuity using patient reported data. Outcome measures examined were quality of life (n = 11), self-reported health status (n = 8), emergency department use or hospitalisation (n = 7), indicators of function or wellbeing (n = 6), mortality (n = 4) and physiological measures (n = 2). Analysis was limited by the relatively small number of hetrogenous studies. The majority of studies showed a link between at least one measure of continuity and one health outcome.

Conclusion: Whilst there is emerging evidence of a link between patient reported continuity and several outcomes, the evidence is not as strong as that for administrative measures of continuity. This may be because administrative measures record something different to patient reported measures, or that studies using patient reported measures are smaller and less able to detect smaller effects. Future research should use larger sample sizes to clarify if a link does exist and what the potential mechanisms underlying such a link could be. When measuring continuity, researchers and health system administrators should carefully consider what type of continuity measure is most appropriate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Post-pandemic patient safety: have the characteristics of incidents with harm changed? Comparative observational study in primary care via review of medical records with a trigger tool. Opportunities of integrated care to improve equity for adults with complex needs: a qualitative study of case management in primary care. Shared decision-making with patients with complex care needs: a scoping review. Turnover intention and continuing professional development of rural doctors from targeted admission medical education program in China: a cross-sectional study in the post-COVID-19 era. Chronic kidney disease in older adults: challenges and opportunities for the primary care provider.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1