Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation and operationalization of Integrated People-Centred Health Services delivery strategies in integrated osteoporosis care (IOC) initiatives: a systematic review

  • Review
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated Osteoporosis Care (IOC) has been emerging over the past decade. To support integrated care initiatives, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has developed the Integrated People Centred Health Services (IPCHS) framework, which consists of five interdependent strategies. Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, World of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus) were searched for relevant studies published from January 1, 2010 to December 2022. Initiatives implementing collaborative practices and at least two IPCHS strategies were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project checklist. Seventy-six publications describing 69 implementations met the inclusion criteria; 90% of them were implemented at the hospital level, and over half focused on secondary fracture prevention. Three implementations captured all five IPCHS strategies, and half applied three. Substrategies targeting individuals as beneficiaries were frequently employed. Substrategies requiring fundamental shifts (e.g., systemic coordination and updating) were seldomly implemented. Substantive heterogeneity in substrategy operationalization was observed. Patient education, standardized care, team-based care, care coordinators, and health care provider training were commonly pursued. IOC interventions have focused mainly on secondary fracture prevention in a hospital setting and have been narrowly operationalized. Future implementation should: employ all five IPCHS strategies; better align programmes, providers, and regulatory frameworks, while adapting funding mechanisms; and operationalize broader and more innovative substrategies.

Registration: This review has been registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO (CRD42021250244).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

EMR:

Electronic medical record

FLS:

Fracture liaison service

HCP:

Healthcare provider

IOC:

Integrated osteoporosis care

IPCHS:

Integrated people-centred health services

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Chehade MJ, Gill TK, Kopansky-Giles D, Schuwirth L, Karnon J, McLiesh P et al (2016) Building multidisciplinary health workforce capacity to support the implementation of integrated, people-centred Models of Care for musculoskeletal health. Best Pract Res Clin Rheum 30(3):559–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2016.09.005

  2. WHO (2016) Framework on integrated, people-centred health services. World Health Organization

  3. Aspray TJ, Hill TR (2019) Osteoporosis and the ageing skeleton. In: Harris JR, Korolchuk VI (eds) Biochemistry and cell biology of ageing: Part II Clinical science. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 453–476

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Nguyen KD, Bagheri B, Bagheri H (2018) Drug-induced bone loss: a major safety concern in Europe. Expert Opin Drug Saf 17(10):1005–1014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Jong MR, Van der Elst M, Hartholt KA (2013) Drug-related falls in older patients: implicated drugs, consequences, and possible prevention strategies. Ther Adv Drug Saf 4(4):147–154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hita-Contreras F et al (2014) Association of bone mineral density with postural stability and the fear of falling in Spanish postmenopausal women. Maturitas 79(3):322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li N et al (2021) The impact of fracture liaison services on subsequent fractures and mortality: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 32(8):1517–1530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. IOF (2021) Capture the fracture. 2021 May 14]; Available from: capturethefracture.org. Accessed 14 May 2021

  9. Walters S et al (2017) Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging 12:117–127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu CH et al (2018) Economic impact and cost-effectiveness of fracture liaison services: a systematic review of the literature. Osteoporos Int 29(6):1227–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sabharwal S, Wilson H (2015) Orthogeriatrics in the management of frail older patients with a fragility fracture. Osteoporos Int 26(10):2387–2399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grigoryan VA, Javedan H, Rudolph JL (2014) Ortho-geriatric care models and outcomes in Hip Fracture Patients: a systematic review an met-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 28(3):e49–e55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Marsh D et al (2011) Coordinator-based systems for secondary prevention in fragility fracture patients. Osteoporos Int 22(7):2051–2065

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Willers C et al (2022) Osteoporosis in Europe: a compendium of country-specific reports. Arch Osteoporos 17(1):23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shweta, Bajpai RC, Chaturvedi HK (2015) Evaluation of inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview of concepts and methods. J Indian Acad Appl Psychol 41(3):20–27

  16. Abrahamsen C et al (2019) The impact of an orthogeriatric intervention in patients with fragility fractures: a cohort study. BMC Geriatr 19(1):268

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Aftab A et al (2020) Effects of fragility fracture integrated rehabilitation management on mobility, activity of daily living and cognitive functioning in elderly with hip fracture. Pak J Med Sci 36(5):965–970

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Amphansap T, Stitkitti N, Dumrongwanich P (2016) Evaluation of police general hospital’s fracture liaison service (PGH’s FLS): the first prospective cohort study in Thailand. Osteoporos Int 27:S782–S783

    Google Scholar 

  19. Amphansap T, Stitkitti N, Arirachakaran A (2020) The effectiveness of Police General Hospital’s fracture liaison service (PGH’s FLS) implementation after 5 years: a prospective cohort study. Osteoporosis Sarcopenia 6(4):199–204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Anderson ME, Mcdevitt K, Cumbler E, Bennet H, Robison Z, Gomez B et al (2017) Geriatric hip fracture care: fixing a fragmented system. Perm J 21:16-104. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/16-104

  21. Axelsson KF et al (2016) Effectiveness of a minimal resource fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int 27(11):3165–3175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Banakh I (2011) PRO-OSTEO Project (Improving osteoporosis management in the acute hospital setting): a pilot single-centre study. Arch Osteoporos 6(1–2):157–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Baroni M et al (2019) The orthogeriatric comanagement improves clinical outcomes of hip fracture in older adults. Osteoporos Int 30(4):907–916

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beaton DE et al (2017) Addition of a fracture risk assessment to a coordinator’s role improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening in a fragility fracture screening program. Osteoporos Int 28(3):863–869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Beaupre LA et al (2020) Implementation of an in-patient hip fracture liaison service to improve initiation of osteoporosis medication use within 1-year of hip fracture: a population-based time series analysis using the RE-AIM framework. Arch Osteoporos 15(1):83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-0751-2

  26. AR B et al (2018) IImpact of a fracture liaison service on patient management after an osteoporotic fracture: the CHUV FLS. Swiss Med Wkly 148:w14579. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2018.14579

  27. Bracey DN et al (2016) An orthopedic-hospitalist comanaged hip fracture service reduces inpatient length of stay. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 7(4):171–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/215145816661383

  28. Brañas F et al (2018) Beyond orthogeriatric co-management model: benefits of implementing a process management system for hip fracture. Arch Osteoporos 13(1):81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cheung WH et al (2018) Evaluation of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for elderly patients with hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. J Rehabil Med 50(3):285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ciaschini PM et al (2010) Community based intervention to optimize osteoporosis management: randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-10-60

  31. Cosman F, Nicpon K, Nieves JW (2017) Results of a fracture liaison service on hip fracture patients in an open healthcare system. Aging Clin Exp Res 29(2):331–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Deschodt M et al (2011) Effect of an inpatient geriatric consultation team on functional outcome, mortality, institutionalization, and readmission rate in older adults with hip fracture: a controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 59(7):1299–1308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Duaso E et al (2017) Advantages of care for patients with hip fractures in the acute geriatric unit: hip study Anoia. Geriatr Gerontol Int 18(3):407–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Folbert EC et al (2012) Geriatric fracture center: a multidisciplinary treatment approach for older patients with a hip fracture improved quality of clinical care and short-term treatment outcomes. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehab 3(2):59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Giles M et al (2011) A team approach: implementing a model of care for preventing osteoporosis related fractures. Osteoporos Int 22(8):2321–2328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gomez F et al (2019) Effects of the falls and fractures clinic as an integrated multidisciplinary model of care in Australia: A pre-post study. BMJ Open 9(7):e027013

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. González-Montalvo JI et al (2010) The orthogeriatric unit for acute patients: a new model of care that improves efficiency in the management of patients with hip fracture. Hip Int 20(2):229–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. González-Quevedo D et al (2020) Fracture liaison service and mortality in elderly hip fracture patients: a prospective cohort study. Osteoporos Int 31(1):77–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. González-Quevedo D et al (2022) A 2-year follow-up of a novel Fracture Liaison Service: can we reduce the mortality in elderly hip fracture patients? A prospective cohort study. Osteoporos Int 33(8):1695–1702

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Greene D, Dell RM (2010) Outcomes of an osteoporosis disease-management program managed by nurse practitioners. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 22(6):326–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Greenspan SL et al (2018) Implementing a fracture liaison service open model of care utilizing a cloud-based tool. Osteoporos Int 29(4):953–960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gupta A (2014) The effectiveness of geriatrician-led comprehensive hip fracture collaborative care in a new acute hip unit based in a general hospital setting in the UK. J R Coll Phys Edinburgh 44(1):20–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hoekstra JC et al (2011) Effectiveness of multidisciplinary nutritional care on nutritional intake, nutritional status and quality of life in patients with hip fractures: a controlled prospective cohort study. Clin Nutr 30(4):455–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hofflich HL et al (2014) Using a triggered endocrinology service consultation to improve the evaluation, management, and follow-up of osteoporosis in hip-fracture patients. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 40(5):228–234

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Huntjens KMB et al (2014) Fracture liaison service: impact on subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidence and mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(4):e29–e29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Inderjeeth CA et al (2010) A multimodal intervention to improve fragility fracture management in patients presenting to emergency departments. Med J Aust 193(3):149–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Inderjeeth CA et al (2018) Implementation of the Western Australian Osteoporosis Model of Care: a fracture liaison service utilising emergency department information systems to identify patients with fragility fracture to improve current practice and reduce re-fracture rates: a 12-month analysis. Osteoporos Int 29(8):1759–1770

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jaglal SB et al (2012) Impact of a centralized osteoporosis coordinator on post-fracture osteoporosis management: a cluster randomized trial. Osteoporos Int 23(1):87–95

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Karlsson Å et al (2016) Effects of Geriatric Interdisciplinary Home Rehabilitation on walking ability and length of hospital stay after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 17(5):464.e9-464.e15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kilgore M et al (2013) Multimodal intervention to improve osteoporosis care in home health settings: results from a cluster randomized trial. Osteoporos Int 24(10):2555–2560

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lamb LC et al (2017) A multidisciplinary approach to improve the quality of care for patients with fragility fractures. J Orthop 14(2):247–251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Lamb SE et al (2020) Screening and intervention to prevent falls and fractures in older people. N Engl J Med 383(19):1848–1859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lebanon OT et al (2020) Virtual orthopedic-rehabilitation-metabolic collaboration for treating osteoporotic hip fractures. Endocr Pract 26(3):232–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee MWH et al (2019) A unified multidisciplinary fragility hip fracture pilot pathway in a trauma centre in Hong Kong: one-year outcome in the acute phase. J Orthop Trauma Rehabil 26(2):77–84

    Google Scholar 

  55. Majumdar SR et al (2018) Comparing strategies targeting osteoporosis to prevent fractures after an upper extremity fracture (C-STOP Trial): a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res 33(12):2114–2121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. McAlister FA et al (2019) Adherence to osteoporosis therapy after an upper extremity fracture: a pre-specified substudy of the C-STOP randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 30(1):127–134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Morris JC et al (2020) Integrated fragility hip fracture program: a model for high quality care. J Hosp Med 15(8):461–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Naranjo A et al (2017) Preventing future fractures: effectiveness of an orthogeriatric fracture liaison service compared to an outpatient fracture liaison service and the standard management in patients with hip fracture. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nielsen D et al (2010) Patient education in groups increases knowledge of osteoporosis and adherence to treatment: a two-year randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 81(2):155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. O’Mara-Gardner K, Redfern RE, Bair JM (2020) Establishing a geriatric hip fracture program at a level 1 community trauma center. Orthop Nurs 39(3):171–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Osaki M et al (2021) Efficiency of coordinator-based osteoporosis intervention in fragility fracture patients: a prospective randomized trial. Osteoporos Int 32(3):495–503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Outman RC et al (2012) Improving osteoporosis care in high-risk home health patients through a high-intensity intervention. Contemp Clin Trials 33(1):206–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Palvanen M et al (2014) Effectiveness of the Chaos Falls Clinic in preventing falls and injuries of home-dwelling older adults: a randomised controlled trial. Injury 45(1):265–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pekkarinen T, Löyttyniemi E, Välimäki M (2013) Hip fracture prevention with a multifactorial educational program in elderly community-dwelling Finnish women. Osteoporos Int 24(12):2983–2992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Piziak VK et al (2011) An effective team approach to improve postoperative hip fracture care. J Orthop Trauma 25(2):72–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Prestmo A et al (2015) Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet 385(9978):1623–1633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Casanova Querol T et al (2022) Health outcomes after the implementation of multidisciplinary clinical guidelines for the care of hip fractures. Rev Clin Esp (Barc) 222(2):73–81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rapp K et al (2022) Effect of an osteoporotic fracture prevention program on fracture incidence in routine care: a cluster-randomized trial. BMC Med 20(1):49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Roblin DW et al (2017) Evaluation of a "Just-in-Time" nurse consultation on bone health: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Perm J 21:16–112. https://doi.org/10.7812/TTP/16-112

  70. Rotman-Pikielny P et al (2018) Orthopedic-metabolic collaborative management for osteoporotic hip fracture. Endocr Pract 24(8):718–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Roux S et al (2013) Priming primary care physicians to treat osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: an integrated multidisciplinary approach. J Rheumatol 40(5):703–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Roy A, Heckman MG, O’Connor MI (2011) Optimizing screening for osteoporosis in patients with fragility hip fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(7):1925–1930

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Ruggiero C et al (2015) Fracture prevention service to bridge the osteoporosis care gap. Clin Interv Aging 10:1035–1042

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Saber HG, Aly M (2022) The effectiveness of an orthogeriatric service in Ain Shams University, Egypt: a quality improvement study. Arch Osteoporos 17(1):101

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Sarfani S et al (2014) Clinical efficacy of a fragility care program in distal radius fracture patients. J Hand Surg 39(4):664–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Shigemoto K et al (2019) The effect of a multidisciplinary approach on geriatric hip fractures in Japan. J Orthop Sci 24(2):280–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Shyu YIL et al (2010) An interdisciplinary intervention for older Taiwanese patients after surgery for hip fracture improves health-related quality of life. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Shyu YI et al (2010) Two-year effects of interdisciplinary intervention for hip fracture in older Taiwanese. J Am Geriatr Soc 58(6):1081–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Shyu YIL et al (2013) Comprehensive care improves health outcomes among elderly Taiwanese patients with hip fracture. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 68(2):188–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Singh S et al (2019) Breaking the cycle of recurrent fracture: implementing the first fracture liaison service (FLS) in British Columbia, Canada. Arch Osteoporos 14(1):116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Smulders E et al (2010) Efficacy of a short multidisciplinary falls prevention program for elderly persons with osteoporosis and a fall history: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(11):1705–1711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Stephens JR et al (2021) Implementation of a fracture liaison service for patients with hip fracture cared for on a hospital medicine service. Hosp Pract (1995) 49(1):41–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Suzuki N et al (2017) Challenges to prevent secondary fractures in patients with hip fractures in Joetsu Myoko, Japan through the increased use of osteoporosis treatment and collaboration with family doctors. J Bone Miner Metab 35(3):315–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Svenøy S et al (2020) Results after introduction of a hip fracture care pathway: comparison with usual care. Acta Orthop 91(2):139–145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Taraldsen K et al (2013) Physical behavior and function early after hip fracture surgery in patients receiving comprehensive geriatric care or orthopedic care: a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 69(3):338–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Thingstad P et al (2016) The long-term effect of comprehensive geriatric care on gait after hip fracture: the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial: a randomised controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 27(3):933–942

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Trombetti A et al (2013) Effect of a multifactorial fall-and-fracture risk assessment and management program on gait and balance performances and disability in hospitalized older adults: a controlled study. Osteoporos Int 24(3):867–876

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Van der Kallen J et al (2014) A fracture prevention service reduces further fractures two years after incident minimal trauma fracture. Int J Rheum Dis 17(2):195–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. van der Vet PCR et al (2019) Secondary prevention of minor trauma fractures: the effects of a tailored intervention: an observational study. Arch Osteoporos 14(1):44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Yee DKH et al (2022) Orthogeriatric multidisciplinary co-management across acute and rehabilitation care improves length of stay, functional outcomes and complications in geriatric hip fracture patients. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 13:21514593221085813

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Yoshino Y et al (2021) Effectiveness of a Japanese multi-professional cooperative osteoporosis liaison service at a private hospital for decreasing secondary fractures in osteoporosis patients with fragility fractures. Arch Osteoporos 16(1):75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-021-0924-7

  92. de Freitas C, Martin G (2015) Inclusive public participation in health: policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare. Soc Sci Med 135:31–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Legrand MA, Chapurlat R (2021) Imminent fracture risk. Joint Bone Spine 88(3):105105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2020.105105

  94. Mendis AS, Ganda K, Seibel MJ (2017) Barriers to secondary fracture prevention in primary care. Osteoporos Int 28(10):2913–2919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. WHO (2015) WHO global strategy on integrated people-centred health services 2016–2026. Executive Summary: placing people and communities at the centre of health services. Geneva

  96. Fuggle NR et al (2021) The treatment gap: the missed opportunities for osteoporosis therapy. Bone 144:115833–115833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Smith SM et al (2021) Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1(1):CD0006560

  98. Ahmed A et al (2021) Untangling the inter-relatedness within integrated care programmes for community-dwelling frail older people: a rapid realist review. BMJ Open 11(4):e043280

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Lian J et al (2019) Long-term cost-effectiveness of a Patient Empowerment Programme for type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care. Diabetes Obes Metab 21(1):73–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Yu DS-f et al (2022) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an empowerment-based self-care education program on health outcomes among patients with heart failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 5(4):e225982

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Goodwin N (2016) Understanding and evaluating the implementation of integrated care: a “three pipe” problem. Int J Integr Care 16(4):19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Looman W et al (2021) Drivers of successful implementation of integrated care for multi-morbidity: mechanisms identified in 17 case studies from 8 European countries. Soc Sci Med 227:113728. https://doi.org/10.1016/jsocscimed.2021.113728

Download references

Funding

This work has been made possible through a value-based partnership between Ghent University and Amgen. This partnership has no impact on the design, conduct, analysis or publication decisions of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Caroline Verdonck, Ruben Willems & Liesbeth Borgermans

Authors
  1. Caroline Verdonck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruben Willems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liesbeth Borgermans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Verdonck.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Prof. Liesbeth Borgermans participates in meetings of the Global Coalition of Ageing as expert but has not received grants or fees for this. Prof. Borgermans has received grants from Amgen for consultancy, speakers-fees and podcasts-activities. Dr. Verdonck and Dr. Willems have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Contributions to the literature

• This paper presents the first systematic review of the implementation of IPCHS strategies and substrategies in IOC initiatives.

• Descriptions of the methods by which IPCHS strategies were operationalized in IOC initiatives are provided.

• Opportunities for future IOC optimization revealed by the study are discussed.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verdonck, C., Willems, R. & Borgermans, L. Implementation and operationalization of Integrated People-Centred Health Services delivery strategies in integrated osteoporosis care (IOC) initiatives: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int 34, 841–865 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-023-06678-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-023-06678-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation