Table 6.
Characteristics of Instruments Measuring Integrated Care Constructs Identified in the Review (379 validation studies of 209 index instruments)
| General Characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Type of respondent | n (%) |
| Patient themselves | 228 (60) |
| Informal caregiver themselves | 26 (7) |
| Patients (proxy) | 1 (<1) |
| Health care providers | 77 (20) |
| Patients and informal caregivers | 9 (2) |
| Patients and health care providers | 10 (3) |
| Othera | 28 (7) |
| Health status of respondent | |
| Healthy | 40 (11) |
| With disease | 219 (58) |
| Mixed | 23 (6) |
| Not applicablec | 66 (17) |
| Not reported | 31 (8) |
| Disease category (n = 219) | |
| Non‐chronic condition | 3 (1) |
| Single chronic condition | 36 (16) |
| Multiple chronic conditions | 46 (21) |
| Cancer | 30 (14) |
| Mental and behavioral disorders | 35 (16) |
| Other nonspecific conditionsd | 36 (16) |
| Not reported | 33 (15) |
| Setting (not mutually exclusive) | |
| General population | 39 (10) |
| Primary care | 148 (39) |
| Secondary care | 121 (32) |
| Specialist care | 127 (34) |
| Community services | 47 (12) |
| Home‐based care | 20 (5) |
| Social services | 1 (<1) |
| Nursing homes | 16 (4) |
| Pharmacies | 2 (<1) |
| Mode of administration | |
| Face‐to‐face interview | 40 (11) |
| Tele‐interview | 20 (5) |
| Self‐administered (PAPI, postal) | 235 (62) |
| Self‐administered (CAPI, electronic) | 13 (3) |
| Combination | 26 (7) |
| Otherb | 30 (8) |
| Not reported | 15 (4) |
| Language administered in | |
| English | 249 (66) |
| Dutch | 32 (8) |
| Swedish | 13 (3) |
| Spanish | 6 (2) |
| Chinese | 5 (1) |
| Finnish | 5 (1) |
| German | 4 (1) |
| Korean | 4 (1) |
| Norwegian | 4 (1) |
| Thai | 3 (<1) |
| Portuguese | 3 (<1) |
| French | 2 (<1) |
| Japanese | 2 (<1) |
| Othere | 5 (1) |
| Multiple languages (at least 2) | 33 (9) |
| Not reported | 9 (2) |
| Construct‐specific Characteristics | |
| Constructs purported to measure | n (%) |
| Care integration | 25 (7) |
| Care continuity | 51 (14) |
| Care coordination | 26 (7) |
| Case management | 3 (<1) |
| Patient‐centered care | 216 (57) |
| Comprehensive care | 5 (1.3) |
| Patient satisfaction | 5 (1.3) |
| Chronic care | 10 (3) |
| Multiple constructs | 28 (7) |
| Otherg | 10 (3) |
| Constructs measured (mapped to the framework) | |
| Care integration | 124 (33) |
| Care continuity/comprehensive care | 58 (15) |
| Care coordination/case management | 12 (3) |
| Patient‐centered care | 185 (49) |
| Domain classification (mapped to the framework) h | |
| Clinical integration | 318 (84) |
| Professional integration | 14 (4) |
| Organizational integration | 13 (3) |
| System integration | 0 (0) |
| Functional integration | 2 (<1) |
| Normative integration | 0 (0) |
| Combination | 32 (8) |
Abbreviations: CAPI, computer‐assisted personal interviewing; PAPI, paper and pencil interviewing; proxy, an informal caregiver or another representative responds on behalf of the patient.
aDirect observer or rater, verbal coding, organizations, researchers, students.
bDirect observer or rater, checklist.
cRespondents were not patients.
dOnly described as patients.
eItalian, South African, Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek.
fRehabilitation center, university/teaching institution/medical schools, intermediate care facilities, integrated care organizations, health education facilities, long‐term care facilities, and dental facilities.
gClinical risk management, cultural competency, geriatric care environment, quality of care, care processes, organizational access, etc.
hNormative and system integration domains were always assessed in combination with the other domains.