Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The pros and cons of the implementation of a ch...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care: the points of view of European rural general practitioners

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care: the points of view of European rural general practitioners. / Kurpas, D.; Petrazzuoli, F.; Szwamel, K. et al.
In: Rural and Remote Health, Vol. 21, No. 3, 6509, 30.08.2021.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Kurpas, D, Petrazzuoli, F, Szwamel, K, Randall-Smith, J, Blahova, B, Dumitra, G, Javorská, K, Mohos, A, Simões, JA, Tkachenko, V, Kern, J-B, Holland, C & Gwyther, H 2021, 'The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care: the points of view of European rural general practitioners', Rural and Remote Health, vol. 21, no. 3, 6509. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH6509

APA

Kurpas, D., Petrazzuoli, F., Szwamel, K., Randall-Smith, J., Blahova, B., Dumitra, G., Javorská, K., Mohos, A., Simões, J. A., Tkachenko, V., Kern, J.-B., Holland, C., & Gwyther, H. (2021). The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care: the points of view of European rural general practitioners. Rural and Remote Health, 21(3), Article 6509. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH6509

Vancouver

Kurpas D, Petrazzuoli F, Szwamel K, Randall-Smith J, Blahova B, Dumitra G et al. The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care: the points of view of European rural general practitioners. Rural and Remote Health. 2021 Aug 30;21(3):6509. doi: 10.22605/RRH6509

Author

Kurpas, D. ; Petrazzuoli, F. ; Szwamel, K. et al. / The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care : the points of view of European rural general practitioners. In: Rural and Remote Health. 2021 ; Vol. 21, No. 3.

Bibtex

@article{7f902af27d044ceca4b25a3e692bf10f,
title = "The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care: the points of view of European rural general practitioners",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION: This article describes the views of European rural general practitioners regarding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the implementation of a chronic care model (CCM) in European rural primary care. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods online survey. Data were collected from 227 general practitioners between May and December 2017. Categorical data were analysed using descriptive methods while free-text responses were analysed using qualitative methods. The setting was rural primary care in nine European countries (including Central and Eastern Europe). Main outcomes measures were respondents' evaluations of a chronic care model in their rural healthcare settings in terms of SWOT. RESULTS: The SWOT analysis showed that the expertise of healthcare professionals and the strength of relationships and communications between professionals, caregivers and patients are positive components of the CCM system. However, ensuring adequate staffing levels and staff competency are issues that would need to be addressed. Opportunities included the need to enable patients to participate in decision making by ensuring adequate health literacy. CONCLUSION: The CCM could certainly have benefits for health care in rural settings but staffing levels and staff competency would need to be addressed before implementation of CCM in such settings. Improving health literacy among patients and their carers will be essential to ensure their full participation in the implementation of a successful CCM.",
keywords = "disease management, Europe, health and wellbeing, health services research, primary health care survey research, public policy issues, rural health services, chronic disease",
author = "D. Kurpas and F. Petrazzuoli and K. Szwamel and J. Randall-Smith and B. Blahova and G. Dumitra and K. Javorsk{\'a} and A. Mohos and J.A. Sim{\~o}es and V. Tkachenko and J.-B. Kern and C. Holland and H. Gwyther",
year = "2021",
month = aug,
day = "30",
doi = "10.22605/RRH6509",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
journal = "Rural and Remote Health",
issn = "1445-6354",
publisher = "Deakin University",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The pros and cons of the implementation of a chronic care model in European rural primary care

T2 - the points of view of European rural general practitioners

AU - Kurpas, D.

AU - Petrazzuoli, F.

AU - Szwamel, K.

AU - Randall-Smith, J.

AU - Blahova, B.

AU - Dumitra, G.

AU - Javorská, K.

AU - Mohos, A.

AU - Simões, J.A.

AU - Tkachenko, V.

AU - Kern, J.-B.

AU - Holland, C.

AU - Gwyther, H.

PY - 2021/8/30

Y1 - 2021/8/30

N2 - INTRODUCTION: This article describes the views of European rural general practitioners regarding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the implementation of a chronic care model (CCM) in European rural primary care. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods online survey. Data were collected from 227 general practitioners between May and December 2017. Categorical data were analysed using descriptive methods while free-text responses were analysed using qualitative methods. The setting was rural primary care in nine European countries (including Central and Eastern Europe). Main outcomes measures were respondents' evaluations of a chronic care model in their rural healthcare settings in terms of SWOT. RESULTS: The SWOT analysis showed that the expertise of healthcare professionals and the strength of relationships and communications between professionals, caregivers and patients are positive components of the CCM system. However, ensuring adequate staffing levels and staff competency are issues that would need to be addressed. Opportunities included the need to enable patients to participate in decision making by ensuring adequate health literacy. CONCLUSION: The CCM could certainly have benefits for health care in rural settings but staffing levels and staff competency would need to be addressed before implementation of CCM in such settings. Improving health literacy among patients and their carers will be essential to ensure their full participation in the implementation of a successful CCM.

AB - INTRODUCTION: This article describes the views of European rural general practitioners regarding the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the implementation of a chronic care model (CCM) in European rural primary care. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods online survey. Data were collected from 227 general practitioners between May and December 2017. Categorical data were analysed using descriptive methods while free-text responses were analysed using qualitative methods. The setting was rural primary care in nine European countries (including Central and Eastern Europe). Main outcomes measures were respondents' evaluations of a chronic care model in their rural healthcare settings in terms of SWOT. RESULTS: The SWOT analysis showed that the expertise of healthcare professionals and the strength of relationships and communications between professionals, caregivers and patients are positive components of the CCM system. However, ensuring adequate staffing levels and staff competency are issues that would need to be addressed. Opportunities included the need to enable patients to participate in decision making by ensuring adequate health literacy. CONCLUSION: The CCM could certainly have benefits for health care in rural settings but staffing levels and staff competency would need to be addressed before implementation of CCM in such settings. Improving health literacy among patients and their carers will be essential to ensure their full participation in the implementation of a successful CCM.

KW - disease management

KW - Europe

KW - health and wellbeing

KW - health services research

KW - primary health care survey research

KW - public policy issues

KW - rural health services

KW - chronic disease

U2 - 10.22605/RRH6509

DO - 10.22605/RRH6509

M3 - Journal article

VL - 21

JO - Rural and Remote Health

JF - Rural and Remote Health

SN - 1445-6354

IS - 3

M1 - 6509

ER -