ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2013
Interprofessional practice in primary care: development of a tailored process model.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Interprofessional collaboration among health professionals in cleft lip and palate treatment and care in the public health sector of South Africa.Human resources for health · 2021Article
- Key constituents for integration of care for children assisted with long-term home ventilation: a European study.BMC pediatrics · 2020Article
- Children's complex care needs: a systematic concept analysis of multidisciplinary language.European journal of pediatrics · 2018Review
- From simplicity towards complexity: the Italian multidimensional approach to obesity.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the improvement of interprofessional practice in primary care by performing the first three steps of the implementation model described by Grol et al. This article describes the targets for improvement in a setting for children with complex care needs (step 1), the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing interprofessional practice (step 2), and the development of a tailored interprofessional process model (step 3).
methodsIn step 2, thirteen qualitative semistructured interviews were held with several stakeholders, including parents of children, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, a physical therapist, the manager of the team, two general practitioners, a psychologist, and a primary school teacher. The data were analyzed using directed content analysis and using the domains of the Chronic Care Model as a framework. In step 3, a project group was formed to develop helpful strategies, including the development of an interprofessional process through process mapping.
resultsIn step 2, it was found that the most important barriers to implementing interprofessional practice related to the lack of structure in the care process. A process model for interprofessional primary care was developed for the target group.
conclusionThe lack of a shared view of what is involved in the process of interprofessional practice was the most important barrier to its successful implementation. It is suggested that the tailored process developed, supported with the appropriate tools, may provide both professional staff and their clients, in this setting but also in other areas of primary care, with insight to the care process and a clear representation of "who should do what, when, and how."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.