Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 May 10;18(1):350.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3161-3.

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence

Affiliations

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence

Susan Baxter et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context.

Methods: The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence.

Results: One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users.

Conclusions: Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand.

Trial registration: Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .

Keywords: Integrated care; Service reconfiguration, service delivery; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not required.

Consent for publication

The manuscript contains no individual person’s data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The process of study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Country of origin and design of the included studies
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Elements of new models of integrated care in the included literature
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Included studies categorised by patient type/condition

References

    1. England NHS. Five year forward view. London: National Health Service England; 2014.
    1. Shortell SM, Addicott R, Walsh N, Ham C. The NHS five year forward view: lessons from the United States in developing new care models. BMJ. 2015;350:h2005. 10.1136/bmj.h2005. - PubMed
    1. Ham C, Murray R. Implementing the NHS five year forward view: aligning policies with the plan. London: Kings Fund; 2015.
    1. Ahmed F, Mays N, Ahmed N, Bisognano M, Gottlieb G. Can the accountable care organization model facilitate integrated care in England? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015;20:261–264. - PubMed
    1. Robertson H. Integration of health and social care: a review of literature and models implications for Scotland. Royal College of Nursing: Edinburgh; 2011.

Publication types

MeSH terms