Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
EditorialEditorials

The Problem of Fragmentation and the Need for Integrative Solutions

Kurt C. Stange
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2009, 7 (2) 100-103; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.971
Kurt C. Stange
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

AN INTERACTIVE SERIES

In the United States1,2 and around the world3 we face enormous healthcare problems of unsustainable cost increases, poor quality, and inequalities. The low value of the US healthcare system and analogous difficulties in other countries have elicited calls for bold action. Strategic action, however, requires a deeper than surface understanding of the problem.

This is the first in a series of commentaries designed to help make sense of the problems and opportunities we face for understanding and improving health care and health. This series will address the following issues:

  • The problem of fragmentation that underlies the more obvious health care crisis

  • A generalist solution—to reducing fragmentation and fostering integration

  • The nested hierarchy of health care—how health care can be organized to enable the higher levels that are unintentionally devalued by current approaches

  • The paradoxical payoff of primary care—better whole-person and system outcomes despite apparently poorer quality disease-specific care

  • Ways of knowing in health and health care—how understanding development in 4 complementary domains can inform a science and practice of integrated health care

  • Cycles of renewal and adaption—that identify useful strategies for the current unstable position in the health care cycle

Your interaction with these ideas by reading and contributing comments at http://annfammed.org/cgi/eletter-submit/7/2/100 can be a nidus for hope, even as cynics argue that transformative change is not possible. The nattering nabobs of negativity4 are thinking too narrowly. Real change is possible with a different view that allows integrated solutions to emerge.

THE PROBLEM OF FRAGMENTATION

A wealthy man I know went from doctor to doctor to try to find a reason for his fatigue. Each doctor looked in depth at the organ in which (s)he was an expert. Each did the latest tests. Each prescribed the latest drugs and devices. And the patient, the person, got worse. He was in charge of his healthcare; he bought the best of each commodity; but in the end his fatigue remained and he only felt more alone.

This man’s experience was the opposite of healing. Healing requires relationships—relationships which lead to trust, hope, and a sense of being known.5 But our healthcare system doesn’t deliver healing. It doesn’t deliver relationships. Increasingly it delivers commodities that can be sold, bought, quantified, and incentivized. While the whole—whole people, whole systems, whole communities—gets worse.6 While governments, health care systems, and individuals spend more and more on healthcare, for less and less value.

Focused laboratory research is needed to understand the behavior of discrete treatments for discrete diseases, but improving health is fostered by a different science, one that considers the behavior of multiple interacting factors which advance the health of whole people within communities. It is the poor generalist health professional who considers only the disease and not the whole person. It is the poor policy maker that designs health care systems that deal only with discrete diseases and fails to create environments that support creative interaction between different parts of the system.6,7

Underlying the current healthcare failings is a critical underappreciated problem: fragmentation—focusing and acting on the parts without adequately appreciating their relation to the evolving whole.8–10 This unbalance, this brokenness, is at the root of the more obvious healthcare crises of unsustainable cost increases, poor quality, and inequality. Fragmentation is at the heart of the ineffectiveness of our increasingly frantic efforts to nurture improvement.

Knowledge advanced greatly in the modern era by making sense of complicated things by understanding their parts. The ensuing rise in specialization11 has led to breathtaking advances from isolating, partitioning, and manipulating the components of physical, biological, and human systems. More recently, new insights in biology, physics, human organization, and other fields have led to understanding complex systems as more than the sum of their parts.12–15 Because of our fragmented understanding of the natural world, systems, and human interactions, however, health care has not kept up with these advances.16–20 Specialized information has expanded without a similar expansion in our ability to integrate, prioritize, and personalize narrowly construed information. As a result, our ability to turn information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom has diminished.21

The Unintended Consequences of Well-Intentioned Actions

The invisibility of this problem is important because fragmentation leads to well-intentioned actions that sometimes have the unintended consequence of making things worse.22 These unintended consequences include the following:

Inefficiency

A cacophony of narrowly-focused programs and services is an excellent strategy for expanding revenues for service and commodity providers. It is not a strategy for efficiently delivering health care.23 Efficient health care requires an ability to personalize and prioritize based on “an acquaintance with the particulars,”24 seen in the context of whole people, communities and systems. It is no coincidence that US healthcare is both the most fragmented and most costly in the world.25

Ineffectiveness

Likewise, it is no fluke that the technologically advanced but fragmented US healthcare system ranks 37th in the performance of its healthcare system.26 Spending more on the parts has not improved the whole. Similar criticisms of fragmented disease-by-disease efforts by the World Health Organization have been raised on the 30th anniversary of the Alma Ata plan for “providing a comprehensive, universal, equitable and affordable healthcare service for all.”27–29 Today the efforts of public health, healthcare systems, and philanthropists are directed at narrow programs with insufficient attention to the larger whole they are trying to affect. Because of the lack of an integrative way of making sense of the world, the need to control and understand narrowly and the short-term incentives to divide and profit replace the greater promise of whole-system approaches. Because of the fragmentary configuration of current scientific evidence,30 the narrowly defined “performance” that is being incentivized in pay-for-performance31 schemes risks unintentionally disincentivizing optimal care of whole people and populations.32–34

Inequality

In a fragmented system, it is easy to ignore the poor.35 Doctors treat whoever comes through the door, often oblivious to the many barriers to entry. Manufacturers make their products based on economic niche more than public good.23 Hospitals and healthcare systems strive to attract “the right case mix” to maximize profits, or just to stay in business. A patchwork of safety nets is stretched to their limits, and many people fall between the nets.36–38 The human and economic costs of unjustness are staggering for individuals and communities deprived of health and its benefits for society.39–40 Further, the spiral of spending on healthcare risks worsening inequalities by siphoning resources from the social determinants of health that are even more important drivers of equitable population health.39

Commoditization

Treating healthcare (one word) as a commodity can unintentionally devalue health care (two words). Health care involves relationships. Disease management programs are bought and sold with a trumping emphasis on the disease and a secondary focus on the person experiencing the illnesses.41 Information technology systems support narrowly evidence-based care of individual diseases, rather than higher level integration of care for prevention, mental health, multimorbid conditions, and acute concerns.42–46 Knowledge generation is narrowly partitioned in disease-specific institutes and initiatives without sufficient balancing research that transcends these boundaries. Specialists, drug and device makers, hospitals and service agencies focus on delivering their well-reimbursed services without a way to consider their effect on the whole person or system, or the opportunity costs on the social determinants of health, such as education and employment.39 The promise of health care is reduced when it is treated as a commodity—when patients become customers, citizens become consumers, healers become providers, and costs for the public good of health care are shifted around like the proverbial hot potato.

Commercialization

The recent worldwide financial meltdown shows that the tremendous benefits of the market must be balanced by incentives toward the larger societal good.47 Although private provision of healthcare services sometimes motivates convenience and satisfaction among those able to access services, private financing of healthcare disastrously has left too many out while fostering harmful overuse of marginal services by others.48,49 Convenience and satisfaction are not the most important health care endpoints, and the pipe dream of a fully informed marketplace making the right health-care decisions has been shown to be woefully unrealistic.50 The failed free market ideology of the US health-care system is being willingly imported by other countries to the detriment of more systemic approaches.

Deprofessionalization

By focusing their role narrowly on a technical skill, procedure, or body part, healthcare professionals have completed one part of their contract with society.51,52 But in focusing narrowly on expertise without also attending to their responsibility to the whole person and to society, healthcare providers have accepted the rewards of a profession without accepting the full responsibility. In buying into (and being paid well for delivering) manufacturing-inspired productivity models of healthcare, we have lost our professionalism and sold our souls without even noticing the transaction. We have settled for being technicians rather than compassionate healers in covenant with our communities. We have forgotten that higher levels of healing are possible by balancing the biotechnical with the biographical.54

Depersonalization

Osler is quoted as saying “It is more important to know what sort of person has a disease than to know what sort of disease a person has.”54 The experience of healthcare in the United States, however, too often is one of not being known as a person. This experience affects the poor, who have difficulty getting access to basic medical care until their problems are emergencies. But it also is experienced by the rich and middle class, who receive as much (and often more) of the sometimes dangerous49 commodities of healthcare as they want but feel abandoned when they need help putting together the pieces of their illness-shattered lives into a meaningful whole.55

Despair and Discord

Patients appear to be more dissatisfied with healthcare in more fragmented systems.56 Indeed, the failure of repeated fragmented attempts to fix the problems can result in a kind of shared hopelessness. When we see only parts, disconnected from the whole, we lose our ability to find incremental actions that are connected to larger evolutionary improvement. The search for single sustainable solutions gets in the way of fostering development toward equitable, integrated, personalized, prioritized health care. Furthermore, the fragmentation of healthcare leads to a get-what-you-can mentality among all involved. Developing shared goals, such as those present and sometimes beset in the British National Health Service,57–60 requires continuous attention, but discernment of how each person’s health and health care affects the others can provide a platform for seeking a better way together.

Understanding the Problem

Understanding the fundamental problem of fragmentation in our disintegrating healthcare system is an important first step. Viewing health care as an evolving whole instead of only as fragmented parts can help us to feel hope where now there is cynicism. Personalization and relationship where now there is detachment and isolation. Professional and corporate shared responsibility where now there is narrow self-interest. High value health care where now there is waste and inequality. Maximizing the opportunities for health and healing, and abiding when healing and health are not possible.

In his inaugural address, President Obama decried “our collective failure to make hard decisions.” An important first decision is to work to understand critical and actionable aspects of the problem. To improve health care and health, the hard and joyful choices necessary to reduce fragmentation await our thinking and acting differently.

In the next issue—the generalist solution.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Frank deGruy, Robert Ferrer, Ken Frisof, Robin Gotler, Larry Green, Ann Louise Kinmonth, William Miller, and Paul Thomas for helpful and challenging comments on earlier versions of this piece. The final decision to accept or refuse their sage advice was mine.

Footnotes

  • Funding support: Dr Stange is partially supported by a Clinical Research Professorship from the American Cancer Society.

  • © 2009 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. Institute of Medicine. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2003.
  2. ↵
    Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Helath Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  3. ↵
    World Health Organization. Primary Health Care—Now More Than Ever. The World Health Report 2008. http://www.who.int/whr/2008/en/.
  4. ↵
    Agnew ST. Address to the California Republican state convention, San Diego, California, In: Congressional Record, September 16, 1970;116:32017.
  5. ↵
    Scott JG, Cohen D, DiCicco-Bloom B, Miller WL, Stange KC, Crabtree BF. Understanding healing relationships in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):315–322.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Thomas P. Integrating Primary Health Care: Leading, Managing, Facilitating. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing; 2006.
  7. ↵
    Fisher ES. Building a medical neighborhood for the medical home. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(12):1202–1205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Ransom DC. Random notes: the patient is not a dirty window. Fam Syst Med. 1984;(Summer):230–233.
  9. Ransom DC. The evolution from an individual to a family approach. In: Henaos S, Grose N, eds. In: Principles of Family Systems in Family Medicine. New York, NY: Brunner-Mazel; 1985:5–23.
  10. ↵
    Stange KC. The paradox of the parts and the whole in understanding and improving general practice. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(4):267–268.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Foucault M. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New York, NY: Vintage Books; 1975.
  12. ↵
    Williams GP. Chaos Theory Tamed. Washington, DC: John Henry Press; 1997.
  13. Wolfram S. A New Kind of Science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media; 2002.
  14. Stacey RD. Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 1996.
  15. ↵
    Lenski RE, Barrick JE, Ofria C. Balancing robustness and evolvability. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(12):e428.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: the challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323(7313):625–628.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. Kernick D. Complexity and Healthcare Organization: A View From the Street. San Francisco, CA: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2004.
  18. Sweeney K. Complexity in Primary Care. Oxon, UK: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2006.
  19. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–136.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Borrell-Carrio F, Suchman AL, Epstein RM. The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):576–582.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Elliot TS. The Rock. New York, NY: Faber & Faber; 1934.
  22. ↵
    May RM. Science and society. Science. 2001;292(5519):1021.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Woolf SH, Johnson RE. The break-even point: when medical advances are less important than improving the fidelity with which they are delivered. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):545–552.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    McWhinney IR. An acquaintance with particulars.... Fam Med. 1989;21(4):296–298.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA. 2000;284(4):483–485.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    World Health Organization. World Health Organization Assesses the World’s Health Systems. The World Health Report. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html. Accessed Jan 15, 2009.
  27. ↵
    Gunn JM, Palmer VJ, Naccarella L, et al. The promise and pitfalls of generalism in achieving the Alma-Ata vision of health for all. Med J Aust. 2008;189(2):110–112.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. McPake B, Mensah K. Task shifting in health care in resource-poor countries. Lancet. 2008;372(9642):870–871.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    van Weel C, De Maeseneer J, Roberts R. Integration of personal and community health care. Lancet. 2008;372(9642):871–872.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Fortin M, Dionne J, Pinho G, Gignac J, Almirall J, Lapointe L. Randomized controlled trials: do they have external validity for patients with multiple comorbidities? Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(2):104–108.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(4):375–384.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Weyer SM, Bobiak S, Stange KC. Possible unintended consequences of a focus on performance: insights over time from the research association of practices network. Qual Manag Health Care. 2008;17(1):47–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. Roland M. Pay-for-performance: too much of a good thing? A conversation with Martin Roland. Interview by Robert Galvin. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(5):w412–w419.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    Campbell SM, McDonald R, Lester H. The experience of pay for performance in english family practice: a qualitative study. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(3):228–234.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    Mercer SW, Watt GC. The inverse care law: clinical primary care encounters in deprived and affluent areas of Scotland. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(6):503–510.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Devoe JE, Baez A, Angier H, Krois L, Edlund C, Carney PA. Insurance + access not equal to health care: typology of barriers to health care access for low-income families. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(6):511–518.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. DeVoe J. The unsustainable US health care system: a blueprint for change. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(3):263–266.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    Fiscella K, Franks P, Gold MR, Clancy CM. Inequality in quality: addressing socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in health care. JAMA. 2000;283(19):2579–2584.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    World Health Organization. Commission on Social Determinants of Health - Final Report. 2008. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/en/index.html. Accessed Jan 30, 2009.
  40. ↵
    Woolf SH. Society’s choice: the tradeoff between efficacy and equity and the lives at stake. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(1):49–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    Geyman JP. Disease management: panacea, another false hope, or something in between? Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(3):257–260.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Lapointe L. Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):223–228.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, Lapointe L, Dubois MF, Almirall J. Psychological distress and multimorbidity in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(5):417–422.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. Fortin M, Soubhi H, Hudon C, Bayliss EA, van den Akker M. Multi-morbidity’s many challenges. Time to focus on the needs of this vulnerable and growing population. BMJ. 2007;334(7602):1016–1017.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  45. Stange KC, Jaén CR, Flocke SA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Zyzanski SJ. The value of a family physician. J Fam Pract. 1998;46(5):363–368.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. ↵
    Starfield B. Threads and yarns: weaving the tapestry of comorbidity. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(2):101–103.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    Colton R, Frisof KB, King ER. Lessons for the health care industry form America’s experience with public utilities. J Public Health Policy. 1998;18(4):389–400.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    Cebul RD, Rebitzer JB, Taylor LJ, Votruba M. Organizational Fragmentation and Care Quality in the US Health Care System. NBER Working Paper. 2008;No. 14212. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14212. Accessed Jan 31, 2009.
  49. ↵
    Franks P, Clancy CM, Nutting PA. Gatekeeping revisited—protecting patients from overtreatment. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(6):424–429.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. ↵
    Geyman JP. Moral hazard and consumer-driven health care: a fundamentally flawed concept. Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(2):333–351.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Sox HC. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(3):243–246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Starr P. The Social Origins of Professional Sovereignty. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers; 1982:3–29.
  53. Heath I, Sweeney K. Medical generalists: connecting the map and the territory. BMJ. 2005;331(7530):1462–1464.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    BrainyQuote Web site. Disease quotes. http://www.brainy-quotes.com/quotes/disease. Accessed Jan 28, 2009.
  55. ↵
    Egnew TR. The meaning of healing: transcending suffering. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):255–262.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    Schoen C, Osborn R, Doty MM, Bishop M, Peugh J, Murukutla N. Toward higher-performance health systems: adults’ health care experiences in seven countries, 2007. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(6):w717–w734.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    Pater JE. The Making of the National Health Service. London: King Edward’s Hospital Fund for London; 1981.
  58. Berwick DM. A transatlantic review of the NHS at 60. BMJ. 2008;337:a838.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  59. Leatherman S, Berwick DM. The NHS through American eyes. BMJ. 2000;321(7276):1545–1546.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    Stange KC. The best of times and worst of times. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(473):963–966.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 7 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 7 (2)
Vol. 7, Issue 2
1 Mar 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Problem of Fragmentation and the Need for Integrative Solutions
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The Problem of Fragmentation and the Need for Integrative Solutions
Kurt C. Stange
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2009, 7 (2) 100-103; DOI: 10.1370/afm.971

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
The Problem of Fragmentation and the Need for Integrative Solutions
Kurt C. Stange
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2009, 7 (2) 100-103; DOI: 10.1370/afm.971
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • AN INTERACTIVE SERIES
    • THE PROBLEM OF FRAGMENTATION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Cancer Survivorship Care Roles for Primary Care Physicians
  • Fragmented health and well-being services as contributing barriers in overcoming the unmet needs of a population with special needs
  • Dedicated Workforce Required to Support Large-Scale Practice Improvement
  • Prevalence of care fragmentation among outpatients attending specialist clinics in a regional hospital in Singapore: a cross-sectional study
  • Unfinished Business: The Role of Research in Family Medicine
  • Impact of sharing electronic health records with patients on the quality and safety of care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis protocol
  • Forces for Integration
  • Poverty, Transportation Access, and Medication Nonadherence
  • Preventing gatekeeping delays in the diagnosis of rare diseases
  • Impact of multimorbidity on healthcare professional task shifting potential in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: a French cross-sectional study
  • Recording a diagnosis of stroke, transient ischaemic attack or myocardial infarction in primary healthcare and the association with dispensation of secondary preventive medication: a registry-based prospective cohort study
  • In This Issue: Tools to Help Focus on What is Valuable
  • Polypharmacy: Americas other drug problem
  • Evaluation of DementiaNet, a network-based primary care innovation for community-dwelling patients with dementia: protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods multiple case study
  • Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach
  • Holding On and Letting Go: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
  • Recognising the role of primary care in cancer control
  • A Participatory Model of the Paradox of Primary Care
  • Back to the Future: Reflections on the History of the Future of Family Medicine
  • Hennepin Health: A Safety-Net Accountable Care Organization For The Expanded Medicaid Population
  • RCGP Continuity of Care Toolkit: promoting relational continuity
  • Understanding the Context of Health for Persons With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Moving From What Is the Matter to What Matters
  • Systems and Complexity Thinking in the General Practice Literature: An Integrative, Historical Narrative Review
  • The Future of Family Medicine Version 2.0: Reflections from Pisacano Scholars
  • Community of Solution for the U.S. Health Care System: Lessons from the U.S. Educational System
  • Increasing Access to Care for Brazos Valley, Texas: A Rural Community of Solution
  • Communities of Solution: The Folsom Report Revisited
  • Delivering a national programme of anticipatory care in primary care: a qualitative study
  • In This Issue: Challenges of Managing Multimorbidity
  • A tale of two cultures: Specialists and generalists sharing the load
  • Protecting generalism: moving on from evidence-based medicine?
  • Primary Care Practice Development: A Relationship-Centered Approach
  • Context for Understanding the National Demonstration Project and the Patient-Centered Medical Home
  • Power to Advocate for Health
  • In This Issue: Relationships Count for Patients and Doctors Alike
  • Ways of Knowing, Learning, and Developing
  • Organizing Health Care for Value
  • A Science of Connectedness
  • The Paradox of Primary Care
  • The Generalist Approach
  • A Way Forward for Health Care and Healers
  • In This Issue: Practice, Research, and Reflection
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recruiting, Educating, and Taking Primary Care to Rural Communities
  • Returning to a Patient-Centered Approach in the Management of Hypothyroidism
  • An Opportunity to Emphasize Equity, Social Determinants, and Prevention in Primary Care
Show more Editorials

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Community / population health
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Professional practice
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Coordination / integration of care
    • Personalized care
    • Relationship
    • Science of connectedness / practice of generalism
  • Other topics:
    • Social / cultural context
    • Disparities in health and health care

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine