TY - JOUR
T1 - Characteristics of collaborative care networks in functional disorders
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Mamo, Nick
AU - van de Klundert, Manouk
AU - Tak, Lineke
AU - Hartman, Tim Olde
AU - Hanssen, Denise
AU - Rosmalen, Judith
N1 - Funding Information:
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956673. This article reflects only the authors' views, the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The authors would also like to thank Abigail Smakowski and the ‘PSY-PSS Framework’ team for support in developing the search terms.
Funding Information:
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956673. This article reflects only the authors' views, the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The authors would also like to thank Abigail Smakowski and the ‘PSY-PSS Framework’ team for support in developing the search terms.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/9
Y1 - 2023/9
N2 - Objective: Functional disorders (FD) are complex conditions, for which multidisciplinary involvement is often recommended. Collaborative care networks (CCN) may unlock the potential of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) in FD care. To understand what characteristics should be part of CCNs in FD, we studied the composition and characteristics of existing CCNs in FD.Methods: We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. A search of PubMed, WebofScience, PsycInfo, SocINDEX, AMED and CINAHL was undertaken to select studies describing CCNs in FD. Two reviewers extracted characteristics of the different CCNs. Characteristics were classified as relating to structure and processes of networks.Results: A total of 62 studies were identified representing 39 CCNs across 11 countries. Regarding structural characteristics, we found that most networks are outpatient, secondary-care based, with teams of between two and 19 members. Medical specialists were most commonly involved and the typical team leads as well as main patient contacts were general practitioners (GPs) or nurses. Regarding processes, collaboration was demonstrated mostly during assessment, management and patient education, less often during rehabilitation and follow-up, mostly using MDT meetings. CCNs provided a wide range of treatment modalities, reflecting a biopsychosocial approach, including psychological therapies, physiotherapy and social and occupational therapy.Conclusion: CCNs for FD are heterogeneous, showing a wide variety of structures as well as processes. The heterogeneity of results provides a broad framework, demonstrating considerable variation in how this framework is applied in different contexts. Better development of network evaluation, as well as professional collaboration and education processes is needed.
AB - Objective: Functional disorders (FD) are complex conditions, for which multidisciplinary involvement is often recommended. Collaborative care networks (CCN) may unlock the potential of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) in FD care. To understand what characteristics should be part of CCNs in FD, we studied the composition and characteristics of existing CCNs in FD.Methods: We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. A search of PubMed, WebofScience, PsycInfo, SocINDEX, AMED and CINAHL was undertaken to select studies describing CCNs in FD. Two reviewers extracted characteristics of the different CCNs. Characteristics were classified as relating to structure and processes of networks.Results: A total of 62 studies were identified representing 39 CCNs across 11 countries. Regarding structural characteristics, we found that most networks are outpatient, secondary-care based, with teams of between two and 19 members. Medical specialists were most commonly involved and the typical team leads as well as main patient contacts were general practitioners (GPs) or nurses. Regarding processes, collaboration was demonstrated mostly during assessment, management and patient education, less often during rehabilitation and follow-up, mostly using MDT meetings. CCNs provided a wide range of treatment modalities, reflecting a biopsychosocial approach, including psychological therapies, physiotherapy and social and occupational therapy.Conclusion: CCNs for FD are heterogeneous, showing a wide variety of structures as well as processes. The heterogeneity of results provides a broad framework, demonstrating considerable variation in how this framework is applied in different contexts. Better development of network evaluation, as well as professional collaboration and education processes is needed.
KW - collaborative care
KW - functional disorders
KW - process indicators
KW - structure indicators
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111357
DO - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111357
M3 - Review article
C2 - 37392482
AN - SCOPUS:85164468533
SN - 0022-3999
VL - 172
JO - Journal of Psychosomatic Research
JF - Journal of Psychosomatic Research
M1 - 111357
ER -