Search

Introduction: Both in literature and in practice there is debate about defining Integrated Care. The WHO for example, defines Integrated Care as a process, not covering the perspective of (cost-) effectiveness. From the perspective of research into evidence in Integrated Care this is rather awkward. Triple aim focusses on 1) quality of life of citizens; 2) quality and continuity of care and, 3) cost effective care. Integrated Care is aimed at well-organized, cost-effective processes of care delivery, provided by committed professionals which must be able to count on well-established evidence for the care interventions they provide in integrated trajectories to their patients. Research should support them both with evidence for effective interventions and evidence for effective application. A basis for thorough research in Integrated Care is narrowed by a lack of a comprehensive definition. Theory/Methods: Since Integrated Care is considered as sets of complex interventions targeting triple aim, we compared definitions of Integrated Care reported in literature with a definition of complex interventions and a model for evidence based developing, testing and implementing complex interventions. This definition and the accompanied model are issued by the British Medical Research Council (MRC) in 2008 and are nowadays worldwide established. During the session at the conference, after a short introduction, we will discuss our proposal with the participants for improving a new definition of evidence based integrated care. Results: Our preparation resulted in a proposal for a definition for ‘Evidence Based Integrated Care’ which covers defining the care problem with the underlying working mechanisms and the test acceptance by patients and care providers. Furthermore, it covers test effect of both the concept of interventions and the (cost) effectiveness in the context were the complex interventions are provided, the organization of the complex interventions in the trajectory and the quality of life and societal participation of citizens or patients. Discussions: On one hand, the perspective of the content of the interventions moves mostly in the domain of healthcare research. On the other hand, the perspective of the organisation of Integrated Care process is predominantly moving in the domains of social sciences and healthcare business research. In order to achieve triple aim care and welfare, a third perspective of directing the content of the interventions and the way of organising the Integrated Care process is necessary. Unfortunately, this remains rather underexposed in research. Conclusions: In order to meet triple aim, research in Integrated Care should focus on three perspectives at ones: the content of the interventions; the organisation of the Integrated Care process; to strengthen both, creating synergy between content and context. Lessons learned: By directing content and context, research in Integrated Care will make a vital contribution to accomplishing triple aim Integrated Care. Limitations: This is a theoretical exercise for starting a discussion for establishing a research basis, needed for focussing research in Integrated Care. Suggestions for future research: Developing research methods for Integrated Care research covering the perspectives of content context and the direction of these.

Introduction and background: The non-existence of a common terminology or standards in Integrated Care makes it difficult to compare experiences and results, whether on a national or international level, while the interdisciplinarity of the concept, both in theory and practice, proves to be a curse when it should be a blessing. Thus, we found it high time to bridge the gap, bring practice to theory and discuss the pressing issues of future Integrated Care research. Workshop report: During the expert workshop, discussions were held concerning four overarching topics: (1) defining the common base for integrated care, evaluation and quality; (2) discussion on methods and tools, healthy environs; (3) governing and managerial prerequisites for integrated care and the future of integrated care; and (4) research questions arising from the workshop. The results were formulated into actions and research questions for the future. Discussion: The workshop proved the necessity of consolidation in the area in order to foment the concept. Researchers should improve coordination and cooperation among themselves and draw from the various fields which deal with similar questions. Conclusion: It remains to be seen whether integrated care manages to grow out of its baby shoes and establish itself as an independent and interdisciplinary field of research.

Introduction and background: The non-existence of a common terminology or standards in Integrated Care makes it difficult to compare experiences and results, whether on a national or international level, while the interdisciplinarity of the concept, both in theory and practice, proves to be a curse when it should be a blessing. Thus, we found it high time to bridge the gap, bring practice to theory and discuss the pressing issues of future Integrated Care research. Workshop report: During the expert workshop, discussions were held concerning four overarching topics: (1) defining the common base for integrated care, evaluation and quality; (2) discussion on methods and tools, healthy environs; (3) governing and managerial prerequisites for integrated care and the future of integrated care; and (4) research questions arising from the workshop. The results were formulated into actions and research questions for the future. Discussion: The workshop proved the necessity of consolidation in the area in order to foment the concept. Researchers should improve coordination and cooperation among themselves and draw from the various fields which deal with similar questions. Conclusion: It remains to be seen whether integrated care manages to grow out of its baby shoes and establish itself as an independent and interdisciplinary field of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Both in literature and in practice there is debate about defining Integrated Care. The WHO for example, defines Integrated Care as a process, not covering the perspective of (cost-) effectiveness. From the perspective of research into evidence in Integrated Care this is rather awkward. Triple aim focusses on 1) quality of life of citizens; 2) quality and continuity of care and, 3) cost effective care. Integrated Care is aimed at well-organized, cost-effective processes of care delivery, provided by committed professionals which must be able to count on well-established evidence for the care interventions they provide in integrated trajectories to their patients. Research should support them both with evidence for effective interventions and evidence for effective application. A basis for thorough research in Integrated Care is narrowed by a lack of a comprehensive definition. Theory/Methods: Since Integrated Care is considered as sets of complex interventions targeting triple aim, we compared definitions of Integrated Care reported in literature with a definition of complex interventions and a model for evidence based developing, testing and implementing complex interventions. This definition and the accompanied model are issued by the British Medical Research Council (MRC) in 2008 and are nowadays worldwide established. During the session at the conference, after a short introduction, we will discuss our proposal with the participants for improving a new definition of evidence based integrated care. Results: Our preparation resulted in a proposal for a definition for 'Evidence Based Integrated Care' which covers defining the care problem with the underlying working mechanisms and the test acceptance by patients and care providers. Furthermore, it covers test effect of both the concept of interventions and the (cost) effectiveness in the context were the complex interventions are provided, the organization of the complex interventions in the trajectory and the quality of life and societal participation of citizens or patients. Discussions: On one hand, the perspective of the content of the interventions moves mostly in the domain of healthcare research. On the other hand, the perspective of the organisation of Integrated Care process is predominantly moving in the domains of social sciences and healthcare business research. In order to achieve triple aim care and welfare, a third perspective of directing the content of the interventions and the way of organising the Integrated Care process is necessary. Unfortunately, this remains rather underexposed in research. Conclusions: In order to meet triple aim, research in Integrated Care should focus on three perspectives at ones: the content of the interventions; the organisation of the Integrated Care process; to strengthen both, creating synergy between content and context. Lessons learned: By directing content and context, research in Integrated Care will make a vital contribution to accomplishing triple aim Integrated Care. Limitations: This is a theoretical exercise for starting a discussion for establishing a research basis, needed for focussing research in Integrated Care. Suggestions for future research: Developing research methods for Integrated Care research covering the perspectives of content context and the direction of these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Background: The non-existence of a common terminology or standards in Integrated Care makes it difficult to compare experiences and results, whether on a national or international level, while the interdisciplinarity of the concept, both in theory and practice, proves to be a curse when it should be a blessing. Thus, we found it high time to bridge the gap, bring practice to theory and discuss the pressing issues of future Integrated Care research. WORKSHOP REPORT: DURING THE EXPERT WORKSHOP, DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD CONCERNING FOUR OVERARCHING TOPICS: (1) defining the common base for integrated care, evaluation and quality; (2) discussion on methods and tools, healthy environs; (3) governing and managerial prerequisites for integrated care and the future of integrated care; and (4) research questions arising from the workshop. The results were formulated into actions and research questions for the future., Discussion: The workshop proved the necessity of consolidation in the area in order to foment the concept. Researchers should improve coordination and cooperation among themselves and draw from the various fields which deal with similar questions., Conclusion: It remains to be seen whether integrated care manages to grow out of its baby shoes and establish itself as an independent and interdisciplinary field of research.