2019
DOI: 10.3205/000269
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A close look at lay-led self-management programs for chronic diseases and health care utilisation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 81 publications
(95 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 36 In contrast, another systematic review and meta-analysis ( n [number of studies] = 49) on international chronic disease self-management programs showed mixed results regarding its effect on general health care utilization. 37 A report by Glazier et al 24 found that between 2008/09 to 2009/10, patients receiving primary care from “other” models, FHGs, and CHCs were associated with lower ED visits, while team-based practice models (ie, FHTs) were associated with higher ED visits after adjustments. Similarly, in a 1-year study, patients in blended-capitation models with team-based care had a higher risk of an ambulatory care sensitive conditions hospitalization (AOR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.00-1.12).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 36 In contrast, another systematic review and meta-analysis ( n [number of studies] = 49) on international chronic disease self-management programs showed mixed results regarding its effect on general health care utilization. 37 A report by Glazier et al 24 found that between 2008/09 to 2009/10, patients receiving primary care from “other” models, FHGs, and CHCs were associated with lower ED visits, while team-based practice models (ie, FHTs) were associated with higher ED visits after adjustments. Similarly, in a 1-year study, patients in blended-capitation models with team-based care had a higher risk of an ambulatory care sensitive conditions hospitalization (AOR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.00-1.12).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%