Figure 3
The left column (red), labeled “Rationales”, lists: “1. Increased efficiency (n equals 37)”, “2. Improved quality of care (n equals 28)”, “3. Decreased fragmentation (n equals 26)”, “4. Improved access to care (n equals 11)”, and “5. Increased co-creation (n equals 8)”. The middle column (blue), labeled “Types of network connections”, lists: “1. Cooperation between autonomous actors (n equals 46)”, “2. Formal co-organisation (n equals 21)”, “3. Cooperation initiated slash coordinated by governmental authority (n equals 13)”, “4. Third-party facilitator of cooperation (n equals 8)”, and “5. Co-location of actors (n equals 4)”. The right column (green), labeled “Types of outcomes reported”, lists: “1. Quality of care processes (n equals 33)”, “2. Descriptive statistics and qualitative description of results (n equals 31)”, “3. No outcomes reported (n equals 14)”, “4. Economic results (n equals 8)”, “5. Work environment (n equals 5)”, and “6. Medical results (n equals 3)”. An arrow from “Rationales” leads to “Types of network connections”, and another arrow from “Types of network connections” leads to “Types of outcomes reported”. A section below the diagram reads: “The logical chain of why networks are used (rationale, as described in the articles reviewed), how they are designed (types of network connections described), and how they are assessed (types of outcomes presented in the articles). Numbers show the frequency of occurrence in the reviewed articles. One article usually relates to all categories but can be coded to more than one subtheme within a category”.Rationales, designs, and assessments of networks