Mapping Evidence and Constructing an Analytic Framework: An Umbrella Review Summarizing Primary Care Family Physicians' Experiences With Clinical Integration.

PURPOSE

Strengthening primary care's integration function is a systematic approach to promote integrated care. Understanding the factors influencing the process of integrating care for every patient is crucial for effective intervention planning. The objective of this study was to generate an analytic framework and evidence map of the barriers and facilitators perceived by family physicians (FPs) in clinical integration, a process to coordinate health care services across time, place, discipline, diseases, and patient demographics.

METHODS

Using the Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review methodology, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases, identifying 90 reviews (2010-2022) on primary care FPs and clinical integration. We adopted a best-fit framework approach to group the factors into a customized clinical integration framework, reflecting how a health care system functions. Two evidence maps were created to visualize the reviews' distribution. We validated the framework with another 21 reviews (2022-2024).

RESULTS

The analytic framework consisted of 9 themes and 21 subthemes based on 2,891 factors derived from external and internal sources within primary care practices. Several subthemes were common across themes related to individuals (FPs, physicians other than family physicians and allied health providers, patients) and operating units (systems, organizations, practices), highlighting shared elements. The professional theme was the most significant, appearing in 86% of the reviews and including subthemes related to diseases, clinical guidelines, and teamwork. In contrast, themes related to systems, organizations, and practices were reported less frequently (48%, 22%, and 23%).

CONCLUSION

The complex interactions among factors, subthemes, and themes elucidate challenges in finding a universal strategy or implementing initiatives. The generated evidence maps indicated knowledge gaps to guide future research work.