Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 12;23:2850–2862. doi: 10.12659/MSM.901982

Table 5.

Comparison of studies dealing with integrated care.

Author (year) IC programme country Types of intervention used Main assumptions of ICM
Base for comparison – main assumption of ICM Poland
Bandurska et al. (2016) Poland
  1. Cooperation between specialist and general care

  2. Coordination of treatment

  3. Supervision of patient’s compliance

  4. Home care

  5. Education and promotion of self-management

  6. Support of multidisciplinary team

  1. Study construction

    • – Pre-post study

    • – 6 months follow up after introducing IC

    • – Multivariate cost analysis

  2. IC model construction

    • – Home based support

    • – Supervision of compliance

    • – Multidisciplinary team

    • – Education for patients and families

    • – ICM available for patients in advanced COPD.

  3. Results obtained

    • – Reduction in costs

    • – Reduction in prevalence of hospitalizations and ER visits

    • – More services realized by GPs and ambulatory clinics

Comparison with IC studies
Author (year) IC programme country Types of intervention used Similarities (ICM)In study design.In IC model construction.In results obtained Differences (ICM)In study design.In IC model construction.In results obtained Positive impact of IC
Boven et al. (2014) Belgium
  1. Supervision of patient’s compliance

    • – Multivariate cost analysis

    • – Analysis of changes in number of hospitalizations

    • – Supervision of patient’s compliance and inhaling technique

    • – Savings after introducing IC

    • – Reduction in number of hospitalizations

    • – 12 months follow-up

    • – Pharmacy based intervention

    • – Focused on compliance to pharmaceutical treatment

    • – Other type of pharmacoeconomic analysis used – QALY assessment

  • – Savings of 227 EUR/year/patient

  • – Prevention of 0.07 hospitalization/patient

Steuten et al. Netherlands
  1. Support of multidisciplinary team.

  2. Education and promotion of self-management.

  3. Coordination of treatment

  4. Supervision of patient’s compliance

    • – Pre-post test design

    • – 3 months follow up

    • – Multidisciplinary team cooperation

    • – Education and promotion of self-management

    • – Reduction in number of hospitalizations

    • – Cost analysis of losses of productivity;

    • – 12 months follow-up

    • – Lack of home care

    • – No significant savings found after introducing IC

  • – Reduction in hospitalization by 50%

  • – Reduction in non-routine consultations by 25%

Hermiz et al. (2002) Australia
  1. Supervision of patient’s compliance

  2. Home care

  3. Education and promotion of self-management

    • – Analysis of number of hospitalizations

    • – Home and telephone visits

    • – None

    • – Analysis of effects without costs assessment

    • – 1 month follow-up

    • – No multidisciplinary team

    • – No coordination of treatment

    • – No reduction in number of hospitalizations

  • – Improved knowledge about disease among patients

Casas et al. (2006) Belgium, Spain
  1. Coordination of treatment (individual treatment plan)

  2. Multidisciplinary team

  3. Web-based centre

  4. Education and promotion of self-management

    • – Analysis of number of hospitalizations

    • – Engagement of GPs

    • – Coordination of treatment

    • – Education of patients

    • – Reduction of hospitalizations

    • – No cost analysis

    • – 12 months follow up after IC

    • – Web-based centre

    • – Lack of home care

    • – Decrease in number of GPs visits

  • – Lower number of re-hospitalizations – 1.5±2.6 versus 2.1±3.1.

Titova et al. (2015) Norway
  1. Coordination of treatment (individual treatment plan)

  2. Multidisciplinary team

  3. Call centre

  4. Education and promotion of self-management

    • – IC available only for patients with advanced COPD (stage III–IV GOLD)

    • – Analysis of hospital utilization

    • – Multidisciplinary team

    • – Coordination of treatment

    • – Education of patients

    • – Reduction in hospital utilization

    • – 2 years follow-up

    • – No cost analysis

    • – E-learning programme for patients

    • – No cost specific data to compare

  • – Reduction in hospital utilization

Boland et al. (2015) Netherlands
  1. Coordination of treatment (individual treatment plan)

  2. Multidisciplinary team

  3. ICT programme to support clinical decision-making

  4. Clusters of primary care teams

    • – Analysis of impact of IC on costs

    • – Coordination of treatment (individual treatment plan)

    • – Multidisciplinary team

    • – None

    • – 2 years follow-up

    • – Clusters of primary care teams

    • – ICT programme to support clinical decision-making

    • – No reduction of costs in IC group

  • – None