Kamilla Anna Pinter1, Hanwen Zhang2, Chang Liu3, Bach Tran4, Maulik Chokshi2, Don Eliseo Lucerno-Prisno2,5,6, Vikash Sharma7, Shenglan Tang8,9. 1. Duke Kunshan University, US. 2. ACCESS Health International, US. 3. Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore, ACCESS Health International, CN. 4. Hanoi Medical University, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, VN. 5. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK. 6. Philippines Open University, PH. 7. Internal Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Fiji National University, FJ. 8. Medicine and Global Health, Duke Medical School/Duke Global Health Institute, US. 9. Global Health at SingHealth-Duke-NUS Global Health Institute, US.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Globally, hospital-based healthcare models targeting acute care, are not effective in addressing chronic conditions. Integrated care programmes for chronic diseases have been widely developed and implemented in Europe and North America and to a much lesser extent in the Asia-Pacific region to meet such challenges. We completed a scoping review aiming to examine the elements of programmes identified in the literature from select study countries in the Asia-Pacific, and discuss important facilitators and barriers for design and implementation. METHODS: The study design adopted a scoping review approach. Integrated care programmes in the study countries were searched in electronic databases using a developed search strategy and key words. Elements of care integration, barriers and facilitators were identified and charted following the Chronic Care Model (CCM). RESULTS: Overall the study found a total of 87 integrated care programmes for chronic diseases in all countries, with 44 in China, 21 in Singapore, 12 in India, 5 in Vietnam, 4 in the Philippines and 1 in Fiji. Financial incentives were found to play a crucial role in facilitating integrated care and ensuring the sustainability of programmes. In many cases, the performance of programmes was found not to have been adequately assessed. CONCLUSION: Integrated care is important for addressing the challenges surrounding the delivery of long-term care and there is an increasing trend of integrated care programmes for chronic diseases in the Asia-Pacific. Evaluating the performance of integrated care programmes is crucial for developing strategies for implementing future programmes and improving already existing programmes. Copyright:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Globally, hospital-based healthcare models targeting acute care, are not effective in addressing chronic conditions. Integrated care programmes for chronic diseases have been widely developed and implemented in Europe and North America and to a much lesser extent in the Asia-Pacific region to meet such challenges. We completed a scoping review aiming to examine the elements of programmes identified in the literature from select study countries in the Asia-Pacific, and discuss important facilitators and barriers for design and implementation. METHODS: The study design adopted a scoping review approach. Integrated care programmes in the study countries were searched in electronic databases using a developed search strategy and key words. Elements of care integration, barriers and facilitators were identified and charted following the Chronic Care Model (CCM). RESULTS: Overall the study found a total of 87 integrated care programmes for chronic diseases in all countries, with 44 in China, 21 in Singapore, 12 in India, 5 in Vietnam, 4 in the Philippines and 1 in Fiji. Financial incentives were found to play a crucial role in facilitating integrated care and ensuring the sustainability of programmes. In many cases, the performance of programmes was found not to have been adequately assessed. CONCLUSION: Integrated care is important for addressing the challenges surrounding the delivery of long-term care and there is an increasing trend of integrated care programmes for chronic diseases in the Asia-Pacific. Evaluating the performance of integrated care programmes is crucial for developing strategies for implementing future programmes and improving already existing programmes. Copyright:
Authors: Churnrurtai Kanchanachitra; Magnus Lindelow; Timothy Johnston; Piya Hanvoravongchai; Fely Marilyn Lorenzo; Nguyen Lan Huong; Siswanto Agus Wilopo; Jennifer Frances dela Rosa Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Diane E Threapleton; Roger Y Chung; Samuel Y S Wong; Eliza Wong; Patsy Chau; Jean Woo; Vincent C H Chung; Eng-Kiong Yeoh Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Susan Baxter; Maxine Johnson; Duncan Chambers; Anthea Sutton; Elizabeth Goyder; Andrew Booth Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Stewart Mercer; David Henderson; Huayi Huang; Eddie Donaghy; Ellen Stewart; Bruce Guthrie; Harry Wang Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Jiaer Lin; Kamrul Islam; Stephen Leeder; Zhaohua Huo; Chi Tim Hung; Eng Kiong Yeoh; James Gillespie; Hengjin Dong; Jan Erik Askildsen; Dan Liu; Qi Cao; Benjamin Hon Kei Yip; Adriana Castelli Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 5.120