Instruments Measuring Integrated Care: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties
Context: Integrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the a...
Saved in:
Published in: | The Milbank quarterly Vol. 94; no. 4; pp. 862 - 917 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
United States
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01-12-2016
Milbank Memorial Fund John Wiley and Sons Inc |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Context: Integrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care. Methods: Our comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments. Findings: From the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patientcentered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%). Conclusions: Our results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ArticleID:MILQ12233 Academic Research Fund ark:/67375/WNG-0Q94PTHJ-K Singapore Ministry of Education istex:FC6A3428A941DCECBFA3723746E8536EC3713702 Notes on Appendices Appendix A. Final Search StrategyAppendix B. Key Characteristics of Articles Included in the Systematic ReviewAppendix C. Key Characteristics of Instruments IdentifiedAppendix D. Methodological Quality of Studies per Measurement PropertyAppendix E. Overall Quality (Adequacy) of Measurement Properties per Index InstrumentAppendix F. Instruments With Evidence of Adequate Measurement PropertiesAppendix G. Instruments Grouped According to Domain SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-4 ObjectType-Undefined-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-2 ObjectType-Article-3 |
ISSN: | 0887-378X 1468-0009 |
DOI: | 10.1111/1468-0009.12233 |