Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2020; 38(04/05): 323-330
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1726131
Review Article

What Are Models of Care? A Systematic Search and Narrative Review to Guide Development of Care Models for Premature Ovarian Insufficiency

Alicia R. Jones 
1   Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
2   Department of Endocrinology, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
,
Chau T. Tay
1   Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
2   Department of Endocrinology, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
,
Angela Melder
1   Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
3   Monash Partner's Academic Health Science Centre, Victoria, Australia
,
Amanda J. Vincent
1   Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
2   Department of Endocrinology, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
,
Helena Teede
1   Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
2   Department of Endocrinology, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
3   Monash Partner's Academic Health Science Centre, Victoria, Australia
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council Postgraduate scholarship (grant number 1169192, to A.R.J.); and an Avant Mutual Group Ltd Doctor in Training research Scholarship [to A.R.J.]. The study received no direct funding.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

No specific model of care (MoC) is recommended for premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), despite awareness that POI is associated with comorbidities requiring multidisciplinary care. This article aims to explore the definitions and central components of MoC in health settings, so that care models for POI can be developed. A systematic search was performed on Ovid Medline and Embase, and including gray literature. Unique definitions of MoC were identified, and thematic analysis was used to summarize the key component of MoC. Of 2,477 articles identified, 8 provided unique definitions of MoC, and 11 described components of MoC. Definitions differ in scope, focusing on disease, service, or system level, but a key feature is that MoC is operational, describing how care is delivered, as well as what that care is. Thematic analysis identified 42 components of MoC, summarized into 6 themes—stakeholder engagement, supporting integrated care, evidence-based care, defined outcomes and evaluation, behavior change methodology, and adaptability. Stakeholder engagement was central to all other themes. MoCs operationalize how best practice care can be delivered at a disease, service, or systems level. Specific MoC should be developed for POI, to improve clinical and process outcomes, translate evidence into practice, and use resources more efficiently.

Keywords

premature ovarian insufficiency - care model - healthcare delivery - healthcare systems - quality improvement


Publication History

Article published online:
08 March 2021

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology POI Guideline Development Group. Management of women with premature ovarian insufficiency. Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology 2015. Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Management-of-premature-ovarian-insufficiency.aspx
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Gravholt CH, Andersen NH, Conway GS. et al; International Turner Syndrome Consensus Group. Clinical practice guidelines for the care of girls and women with Turner syndrome: proceedings from the 2016 Cincinnati International Turner Syndrome Meeting. Eur J Endocrinol 2017; 177 (03) G1-G70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bondy CA. Turner Syndrome Study Group. Care of girls and women with Turner syndrome: a guideline of the Turner Syndrome Study Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007; 92 (01) 10-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gameiro S, Sousa-Leite M, Vermeulen N. Dissemination, implementation and impact of the ESHRE evidence-based guidelines. Hum Reprod Open 2019; 2019 (03) hoz011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ebben RH, Vloet LC, Verhofstad MH, Meijer S, Mintjes-de Groot JA, van Achterberg T. Adherence to guidelines and protocols in the prehospital and emergency care setting: a systematic review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2013; 21: 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R. et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966–1998. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21 (Suppl. 02) S14-S20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Taxonomy 2015. Accessed February 15, 2021 at: epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy
    Google Scholar
  • 8 De Bleser L, Depreitere R, De Waele K, Vanhaecht K, Vlayen J, Sermeus W. Defining pathways. J Nurs Manag 2006; 14 (07) 553-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009; 26 (02) 91-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Davidson P, Halcomb E, Hickman L, Phillips J, Graham B. Beyond the rhetoric: What do we mean by a ‘model of care’?. Aust J Adv Nurs 2006; 23 (03) 47-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Department of Health Western Australia. Health Networks Branch. Model of Care Overview and Guidelines. Perth, Australia: 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 12 MacKay C, Veinot P, Badley EM. Characteristics of evolving models of care for arthritis: a key informant study. BMC Health Serv Res 2008; 8: 147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Briggs AM, Towler SCB, Speerin R, March LM. Models of care for musculoskeletal health in Australia: now more than ever to drive evidence into health policy and practice. Aust Health Rev 2014; 38 (04) 401-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 NSW Health. NSW Rehabilitation Model of Care: NSW Health rehabilitation redesign project. Final Report - Model of Care. 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Harfield S, Davy C, Kite E. et al. Characteristics of indigenous primary health care models of service delivery: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Reports 2015; 13 (11) 43-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Briggs AM, Jordan J, Jennings M. et al. A Framework to Evaluate Musculoskeletal Models of Care. Cornwall, UK: Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health of the Bone and Joint Decade; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Nicoll R, Robertson L, Gemmell E, Sharma P, Black C, Marks A. Models of care for chronic kidney disease: a systematic review. Nephrology (Carlton) 2018; 23 (05) 389-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Department of Health Western Australia. Implementation of Models of Care and Frameworks – Progress Report 2015. Perth, WA: 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Hoy D, Geere J-A, Davatchi F, Meggitt B, Barrero LH. A time for action: opportunities for preventing the growing burden and disability from musculoskeletal conditions in low- and middle-income countries. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014; 28 (03) 377-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Scott I, Vaughan L, Bell D. Effectiveness of acute medical units in hospitals: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2009; 21 (06) 397-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hudspeth RS, Vogt M, Wysocki K. et al. Evaluating models of healthcare delivery using the Model of Care Evaluation Tool (MCET). J Am Assoc Nurse Pract 2016; 28 (08) 453-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Elrod JK, Fortenberry Jr JL. The hub-and-spoke organization design: an avenue for serving patients well. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 (Suppl. 01) 457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Briggs AM, Bragge P, Slater H, Chan M, Towler SCB. Applying a Health Network approach to translate evidence-informed policy into practice: a review and case study on musculoskeletal health. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ. et al; IOF Fracture Working Group. Capture the fracture: a best practice framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24 (08) 2135-2152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Agency for Clinical Innovation. Understanding the Process to Develop a Model of Care: An ACI Framework. Chatswood, Australia: 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Briggs AM, Chan M, Slater H. Models of care for musculoskeletal health: moving towards meaningful implementation and evaluation across conditions and care settings. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2016; 30 (03) 359-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Davidson P, Everett B. Managing approaches to nursing care delivery. In: Daly J, Chang E. eds. Transitions in Nursing: Preparing for Professional Practice. Chatswood, Australia: Elsevier; 2016: 125-141
    Google Scholar
  • 28 McGrath KM, Bennett DM, Ben-Tovim DI, Boyages SC, Lyons NJ, O'Connell TJ. Implementing and sustaining transformational change in health care: lessons learnt about clinical process redesign. Med J Aust 2008; 188 (S6): S32-S35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Booker C, Turbutt A, Fox R. Model of care for a changing healthcare system: are there foundational pillars for design?. Aust Health Rev 2016; 40 (02) 136-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996; 74 (04) 511-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bleijenberg N, de Man-van Ginkel JM, Trappenburg JCA. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste by optimizing the development of complex interventions: Enriching the development phase of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework. Int J Nurs Stud 2018; 79: 86-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Beaulieu M, Levin A. Analysis of multidisciplinary care models and interface with primary care in management of chronic kidney disease. Semin Nephrol 2009; 29 (05) 467-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 The Magic Programme. Stakeholder Mapping Tool: The Health Foundation. 2012 . Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://improve.bmj.com/improve_post/stakeholder-mapping-tool/
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Ben-Tovim DI, Dougherty ML, O'Connell TJ, McGrath KM. Patient journeys: the process of clinical redesign. Med J Aust 2008; 188 (S6): S14-S17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Public Participation Team. Patient and Public Participation Policy. NHS England; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012; 24 (01) 28-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sharma AE, Knox M, Mleczko VL, Olayiwola JN. The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 (01) 693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Department of Health Western Australia. Results of the Models of Care Survey. A Snapshot of How Models of Care Have Been Implemented in Western Australia. Perth, WA: Health Networks Branch; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Boon H, Verhoef M, O'Hara D, Findlay B. From parallel practice to integrative health care: a conceptual framework. BMC Health Serv Res 2004; 4 (01) 15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 41 McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q 1988; 15 (04) 351-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ashton T. Implementing integrated models of care: the importance of the macro-level context. Int J Integr Care 2015; 15: e019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008; 41 (3-4): 327-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4 (01) 50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Farquhar CM, Kofa EW, Slutsky JR. Clinicians' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Med J Aust 2002; 177 (09) 502-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Teede HJ, Misso ML, Costello MF. et al; International PCOS Network. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2018; 89 (03) 251-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Minister Launches State-Wide PCOS Service to Help Women with PCOS [Press Release]. Clayton, Victoria: Monash University; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M. et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015; 350: h1258
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Dixon-Woods M. How to improve healthcare improvement-an essay by Mary Dixon-Woods. BMJ 2019; 367: l5514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Woodcock T, Liberati EG, Dixon-Woods M. A mixed-methods study of challenges experienced by clinical teams in measuring improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2021; 30 (02) 106-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A. et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000; 321 (7262): 694-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Dziedzic KS, French S, Davis AM, Geelhoed E, Porcheret M. Implementation of musculoskeletal Models of Care in primary care settings: theory, practice, evaluation and outcomes for musculoskeletal health in high-income economies. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2016; 30 (03) 375-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R. et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38 (02) 65-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Yoon J. Including economic evaluations in implementation science. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35 (04) 985-987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Lewis CC, Fischer S, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Kim M, Martinez RG. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci 2015; 10 (01) 155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999; 89 (09) 1322-1327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Pronk NP. Designing and evaluating health promotion programs. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2003; 11 (03) 149-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58 (02) 107-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998; 317 (7156): 465-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci 2010; 5 (01) 14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Cane J, O'Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012; 7 (01) 37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. “Psychological Theory” Group. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14 (01) 26-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Johnston M. et al; PROTECT Study Group. Learning curves, taking instructions, and patient safety: using a theoretical domains framework in an interview study to investigate prescribing errors among trainee doctors. Implement Sci 2012; 7 (01) 86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Smith JD, Corace KM, MacDonald TK. et al. Application of the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify factors that influence hand hygiene compliance in long-term care. J Hosp Infect 2019; 101 (04) 393-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Allemann SS, Nieuwlaat R, van den Bemt BJF, Hersberger KE, Arnet I. Matching adherence interventions to patient determinants using the theoretical domains framework. Front Pharmacol 2016; 7: 429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol 2008; 57 (04) 660-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB. et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26 (01) 13-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Field B, Booth A, Ilott I, Gerrish K. Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review. Implement Sci 2014; 9 (01) 172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Ben-Tovim DI, Bassham JE, Bennett DM. et al. Redesigning care at the Flinders Medical Centre: clinical process redesign using “lean thinking”. Med J Aust 2008; 188 (S6): S27-S31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D, Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 (04) 290-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Leis JA, Shojania KG. A primer on PDSA: executing plan-do-study-act cycles in practice, not just in name. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26 (07) 572-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Shewhart WA. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Dover: Department of Agriculture; 1939
    Google Scholar
  • 74 Langley G, Nolan K, Nolan T. The foundation of improvement. Qual Prog 1994; 27: 81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Reed JE, Card AJ. The problem with Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25 (03) 147-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Melder A, Robinson T, McLoughlin I, Iedema R, Teede H. An overview of healthcare improvement: unpacking the complexity for clinicians and managers in a learning health system. Intern Med J 2020; 50 (10) 1174-1184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Ranta A, Whitehead M, Gunawardana C. et al. International Telestroke: the first five cases. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016; 25 (04) e44-e45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar