Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20942973›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2010

Practitioners' validation of framework of team-oriented practice models in integrative health care: a mixed methods study.

Isabelle Gaboury, Heather Boon, Marja Verhoef, Mathieu Bujold, Laurent M Lapierre, David Moher

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01785485 (IMPACT), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01785485 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

IMPACT: Integrative Medicine PrimAry Care Trial: A Comparative Effectiveness Study of an Integrative Primary Care Clinic

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ArizonaRan2013 to 2015Enrolled500ConditionsAdult Primary Care PatientsArmsIntegrative medicine primary care model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Isabelle GabouryDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. igaboury@ucalgary.ca
Heather Boon
Marja Verhoef
Mathieu Bujold
Laurent M Lapierre
David Moher

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomedical and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) academic and clinical communities have yet to arrive at a common understanding of what Integrative healthcare (IHC) is and how it is practiced. The Models of Team Health Care Practice (MTHP) framework is a conceptual representation of seven possible practice models of health care within which teams of practitioners could elect to practice IHC, from an organizational perspective. The models range from parallel practice at one end to integrative practice at the other end. Models differ theoretically, based on a series of hypotheses. To date, this framework has not been empirically validated. This paper aims to test nine hypotheses in an attempt to validate the MTHP framework.

methodsSecondary analysis of two studies carried out by the same research team was conducted, using a mixed methods approach. Data were collected from both biomedical and CAM practitioners working in Canadian IHC clinics. The secondary analysis is based on 21 participants in the qualitative study and 87 in the quantitative study.

resultsWe identified three groups among the initial seven models in the MTHP framework. Differences between practitioners working in different practice models were found chiefly between those who thought that their clinics represented an integrative model, versus those who perceived their clinics to represent a parallel or consultative model. Of the scales used in the analysis, only the process of information sharing varied significantly across all three groups of models.

conclusionsThe MTHP framework should be used with caution to guide the evaluation of the impact of team-oriented practice models on both subjective and objective outcomes of IHC. Groups of models may be more useful, because clinics may not "fit" under a single model when more than one model of collaboration occurs at a single site. The addition of a hypothesis regarding power relationships between practitioners should be considered. Further validation is required so that integrative practice models are well described with appropriate terminology, thus facilitating the work of health care practitioners, managers, policy makers and researchers.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationModels, OrganizationalCanadaClinical MedicineComplementary TherapiesCooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleOrganizational CultureOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Care TeamPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID20942973
PMCPMC2974681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.