Evidence mapPaperPMID 28230899Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions.

Susan M Smith, Gráinne Cousins, Barbara Clyne, Shane Allwright, Tom O'Dowd

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Building bridges in migraine management: consensus pathways on best practices across primary and specialist care in Italy.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Uncovering Four Types of Care Coordination in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Susan M SmithHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, RCSI Medical School, 123 St Stephens Green, Dublin, Ireland.
Gráinne CousinsSchool of Pharmacy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Ireland, Dublin 2.
Barbara ClyneHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, RCSI Medical School, 123 St Stephens Green, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Shane AllwrightDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Centre for Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Tom O'DowdDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Centre for Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common? SEARCH

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types. MAIN

resultsWe identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

Indexed as

Family PracticeMedicinePatient Care TeamSpecializationChronic DiseaseContinuity of Patient CareControlled Before-After StudiesDepressionDiabetes MellitusDisease ManagementHumansHypertensionNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID28230899
PMCPMC6473196

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.