Dataset Information

Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Team-based approaches to patient care are a relatively recent innovation in health care delivery. The effectiveness of these approaches on patient outcomes has not been well documented. This paper reports a systematic review of the relationship between team-based care and patient satisfaction.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PSYCHOINFO for eligible studies dating from inception to October 8, 2012. Eligible studies reported (1) a randomized controlled trial, (2) interventions including both team-based care and non-team-based care (or usual care), and (3) outcomes including an assessment of patient satisfaction. Articles with different settings between intervention and control were excluded, as were trial protocols. The reference lists of retrieved papers were also evaluated for inclusion.

Results

The literature search yielded 319 citations, of which 77 were screened for further full-text evaluation. Of these, 27 articles were included in the systematic review. The 26 trials with a total of 15,526 participants were included in this systematic review. The pooling result of dichotomous data (number of studies: 10) showed that team-based care had a positive effect on patient satisfaction compared with usual care (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.54 to 2.84); however, combined continuous data (number of studies: 7) demonstrated that there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between team-based care and usual care (standardized mean difference, -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.40 to 0.36).

Conclusions

Some evidence showed that team-based care is better than usual care in improving patient satisfaction. However, considering the pooling result of continuous data, along with the suboptimal quality of included trials, further large-scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials comparing team-based care and usual care are needed.

SUBMITTER: Wen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4094385 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Wen Jin J Schulman Kevin A KA

PloS one 20140711 7

<h4>Background</h4>Team-based approaches to patient care are a relatively recent innovation in health care delivery. The effectiveness of these approaches on patient outcomes has not been well documented. This paper reports a systematic review of the relationship between team-based care and patient satisfaction.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PSYCHOINFO for eligible studies dating from inception to October 8, 2012. Eligible studies reported (1) a random ...[more]

PMID: 25014674

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlended care interventions combine therapeutic guidance with digital care. Current research results show the promising role of the blended care approach in clinical care. This new way of delivering health care could have the potential to effectively promote physical activity in different public health settings.ObjectiveThe aim of the systematic review is to investigate the varieties of intervention characteristics of blended care interventions to promote physical activity in terms of structure, behavior change goals, behavior change techniques, and effectiveness of blended care interventions compared to a control group.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to March 2021 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Furthermore, the effect size on the outcome of physical activity was examined or calculated.ResultsIn total, the number of reports identified from the database searches was 4828. Of these, 25 studies were included in the review, with a total of 5923 study participants. Results indicated that the characteristics of blended care interventions showed a high heterogeneity. The combinations of therapist-guided interventions and digital interventions allowed the identification of specific subgroups, but they varied in length (range 8-52 weeks, SD 16.6), intensity, and the combination of the components. The most used combination of blended care interventions to promote physical activity was the combination of one-on-one meetings via telephone and Web-based interventions. Motivational models of behavior change were used most frequently as underlying theoretical foundations. Certain behavior change techniques were used consistently across the individual components, e.g., "problem solving" in the therapist-guided component and "feedback on behavior" in the digital component. Considering the effect size of blended care interventions compared with control groups, most studies showed a small effect.ConclusionsIt can be concluded that blended care interventions have potential to promote physical activity. In the future, further high-quality studies should investigate which type of blended care intervention is effective for which target group. Additionally, insights are required on which intervention characteristics are most effective, taking into account new evidence on behavior change. Registration This systematic literature review was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42020188556 ).

Project description:IntroductionGrowth hormone deficiency occurs when the pituitary gland does not produce enough growth hormone. Norditropin®, a recombinant human growth hormone, and Sogroya®, an albumin-binding growth hormone derivative, are prescribed for patients with growth hormone deficiency. This systematic review assesses the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction associated with Norditropin and Sogroya.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify eligible comparative studies. All studies published until June 2023 were included in our analysis. Our outcomes for children included height velocity and height velocity standard deviation score. In contrast, adult outcomes included adverse events, insulin-like growth factor 1-standard deviation score (IGF-1 SDS), and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication-9 (TSQM-9). Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).ResultsTen studies involving 1058 participants (665 children and 393 adults) were included in the meta-analysis. In children, Norditropin at doses of 0.034 and 0.067 mg/kg/day was compared to Sogroya at doses of 0.04, 0.08, 0.16, and 0.24 mg/kg/week. The results showed that 0.034 mg/kg/day Norditropin had a favorable impact on height velocity (MD -2.01, 95% CI -3.7 to -2.12, p < 0.00001) and height velocity standard deviation score (Mean Difference -3.61, 95% CI -5.06 to -2.16, p < 0.00001) when compared to Sogroya 0.04 mg/kg/day. Other doses showed comparable results. In adults, the only significant side effect noted was rash, which favored Sogroya (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04-0.27, p < 0.00001). Additionally, IGF-1 SDS was significantly higher in the Sogroya group than in the Norditropin group (MD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02-0.48, p = 0.03). Furthermore, the overall score of the TSQM-9 questionnaire, which includes three domains: convenience, effectiveness, and satisfaction, was significantly higher in the Sogroya group compared to the Norditropin group (OR 6.36, 95% CI 3.92-8.8, p < 0.00001).ConclusionNorditropin and Sogroya showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles, except for the prevalence of rash in the Norditropin group, and Sogroya has higher satisfaction among adults. More high-quality studies with more patients are required to confirm these results.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the number of studies on electronic symptom reporting has increased greatly. However, the field is very heterogeneous: the choices of patient groups, health service innovations, and research targets seem to involve a broad range of foci. To move the field forward, it is necessary to build on work that has been done and direct further research to the areas holding most promise. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on electronic communication between patient and provider to improve health care service quality, presented in two parts. Part 2 investigates the methodological quality and effects of the RCTs, and demonstrates some promising benefits of electronic symptom reporting. OBJECTIVE: To give a comprehensive overview of the most mature part of this emerging field regarding (1) patient groups, (2) health service innovations, and (3) research targets relevant to electronic symptom reporting. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and IEEE Xplore for original studies presented in English-language articles published from 1990 to November 2011. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of interventions where patients or parents reported health information electronically to the health care system for health care purposes and were given feedback. RESULTS: Of 642 records identified, we included 32 articles representing 29 studies. The included articles were published from 2002, with 24 published during the last 5 years. The following five patient groups were represented: respiratory and lung diseases (12 studies), cancer (6), psychiatry (6), cardiovascular (3), and diabetes (1). In addition to these, 1 study had a mix of three groups. All included studies, except 1, focused on long-term conditions. We identified four categories of health service innovations: consultation support (7 studies), monitoring with clinician support (12), self-management with clinician support (9), and therapy (1). Most of the research (21/29, 72%) was conducted within four combinations: consultation support innovation in the cancer group (5/29, 17%), monitoring innovation in the respiratory and lung diseases group (8/29, 28%), and self-management innovations in psychiatry (4/29, 14%) and in the respiratory and lung diseases group (4/29, 14%). Research targets in the consultation support studies focused on increased patient centeredness, while monitoring and self-management mainly aimed at documenting health benefits. All except 1 study aiming for reduced health care costs were in the monitoring group. CONCLUSION: RCT-based research on electronic symptom reporting has developed enormously since 2002. Research including additional patient groups or new combinations of patient groups with the four identified health service innovations can be expected in the near future. We suggest that developing a generic model (not diagnosis specific) for electronic patient symptom reporting for long-term conditions may benefit the field.

Project description:BACKGROUND: We conducted in two parts a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on electronic symptom reporting between patients and providers to improve health care service quality. Part 1 reviewed the typology of patient groups, health service innovations, and research targets. Four innovation categories were identified: consultation support, monitoring with clinician support, self-management with clinician support, and therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of the RCTs, and summarize effects and benefits from the methodologically best studies. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and IEEE Xplore for original studies presented in English-language articles between 1990 and November 2011. Risk of bias and feasibility were judged according to the Cochrane recommendation, and theoretical evidence and preclinical testing were evaluated according to the Framework for Design and Evaluation of Complex Interventions to Improve Health. Three authors assessed the risk of bias and two authors extracted the effect data independently. Disagreement regarding bias assessment, extraction, and interpretation of results were resolved by consensus discussions. RESULTS: Of 642 records identified, we included 32 articles representing 29 studies. No articles fulfilled all quality requirements. All interventions were feasible to implement in a real-life setting, and theoretical evidence was provided for almost all studies. However, preclinical testing was reported in only a third of the articles. We judged three-quarters of the articles to have low risk for random sequence allocation and approximately half of the articles to have low risk for the following biases: allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Slightly more than one fifth of the articles were judged as low risk for blinding of outcome assessment. Only 1 article had low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. We excluded 12 articles showing high risk or unclear risk for both selective reporting and blinding of outcome assessment from the effect assessment. The authors' hypothesis was confirmed for 13 (65%) of the 20 remaining articles. Articles on self-management support were of higher quality, allowing us to assess effects in a larger proportion of studies. All except one self-management interventions were equally effective to or better than the control option. The self-management articles document substantial benefits for patients, and partly also for health professionals and the health care system. CONCLUSION: Electronic symptom reporting between patients and providers is an exciting area of development for health services. However, the research generally is of low quality. The field would benefit from increased focus on methods for conducting and reporting RCTs. It appears particularly important to improve blinding of outcome assessment and to precisely define primary outcomes to avoid selective reporting. Supporting self-management seems to be especially promising, but consultation support also shows encouraging results.

Dataset Information

Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets