***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: Fifty-one studies were included. They used three different models, namely case management, shared care, and interdisciplinary teams. Six additional interventional strategies were used besides these models: (1) patient-held record, (2) telephone follow-up, (3) communication and case discussion between distant healthcare professionals, (4) change in medical record system, (5) care protocols, directives and guidelines, and (6) coordination of assessments and treatment. Based on the median effect size estimates, no significant difference in patient health-related outcomes was found between patients assigned to interventions and those assigned to usual care. A limited number of studies reported psychological health, satisfaction of providers, or process of care measures. However, they could not be regrouped to calculate median effect size estimates because of a high heterogeneity among studies. Results from this Cochrane review do not allow us to conclude on the effectiveness of included interventions to improve continuity of care on patient, healthcare provider or process of care outcomes. Future research should evaluate interventions that target an improvement in continuity as their primary objective and describe these interventions with the categories proposed in this review. Also of importance, continuity measures should be validated with persons with cancer who have been followed in various settings.
Output:

Three main models of care (case management, shared care and interdisciplinary team) designed to improve continuity of care were identified in the 51 studies included in this review. We found no standard instruments that allow to specifically measure continuity of care in patients with cancer. According to our analysis, there was no clear evidence that the interventions assessed in this review either improved or worsened patient health-related outcomes. Therefore, our analyses did not allow us to draw firm conclusions on the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve continuity of care in the follow-up of patients with cancer. Few studies reported provider and informal caregiver outcomes, as well as process of care outcomes, so they could not be regrouped for analysis. The main limitations of this review were the various differences between the included studies, especially in their study designs, interventions, participants, patients' phase of care, measured outcomes, healthcare settings, and length of follow-up. More relevant research is needed to sort out which interventions aiming to improve continuity of care in the follow-up of patients with cancer are the most beneficial to improve patient, provider and process of care outcomes. Future research should identify which outcomes are the most sensitive to change and the most meaningful regarding continuity of care. Also, it would be valuable to develop a standardised instrument to measure continuity of care in patients with cancer.