Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26017697›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Successful collaboration in dementia care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and informal carers in Germany: results from a focus group study.

Astrid Stephan, Ralph Möhler, Anna Renom-Guiteras, Gabriele Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Mirror meetings with frail older people and multidisciplinary primary care teams: Process and impact analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Astrid StephanFaculty of Health, School of Nursing Science, Witten/Herdecke University, Stockumer Straße 12, 58453, Witten, Germany. astrid.stephan@uni-wh.de.
Ralph MöhlerFaculty of Health, School of Nursing Science, Witten/Herdecke University, Stockumer Straße 12, 58453, Witten, Germany. ralph.moehler@uni-wh.de.
Anna Renom-GuiterasFaculty of Health, School of Nursing Science, Witten/Herdecke University, Stockumer Straße 12, 58453, Witten, Germany. anna.renom@uni-wh.de.
Gabriele MeyerFaculty of Health, School of Nursing Science, Witten/Herdecke University, Stockumer Straße 12, 58453, Witten, Germany. gabriele.meyer@medizin.uni-halle.de.
Witten/Herdecke University · DEMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformal carers of persons with dementia are in contact with numerous healthcare professionals (HCP) in a complex healthcare system. Successful collaboration between the parties involved appears to be essential for good dementia care. Thus, we investigated the perceptions of both HCP and informal carers regarding successful collaboration and sought to describe obstacles and facilitators.

methodsAs part of the 7(th) framework EU project RightTimePlaceCare, five focus groups were conducted with HCP and informal carers of persons with dementia in Germany (n = 30 participants/ time: Oct/Nov 2011). A supplementary secondary data analysis was performed, applying qualitative content analysis with open coding.

resultsThe derived categories were sorted into three overarching themes: collaboration between HCP and informal carers, collaboration among HCP and the impact of resources and healthcare system. HCP and informal carers largely agree on what facilitates or impedes successful collaboration between them. Making the initial contact appears to be a major challenge. While HCP expect to be contacted, informal carers hesitate to seek assistance, primarily due to inner barriers. Permanent contact person/institution, well-trained, empathetic HCP who can establish a trustful relationship are regarded as facilitating collaboration. The relational perspective is more clearly emphasised by HCP than by informal carers. This may be attributed to the absence of a permanent contact person in Germany. Sufficient information relay, clear responsibilities, motivation and defined aims, and a personal relationship between professionals are mentioned as facilitators. External factors, such as rapid staff turnover, insufficient time resources and conditions specified by the health and long-term care system causing financial competition between providers, are described as general barriers to successful collaboration.

conclusionsHCP and informal carers had comparable perceptions of successful collaboration among them. The initial contact seems to be particularly challenging. Better strategies are urgently needed to facilitate the access to professional support. A permanent contact person (e.g., a case manager) might improve collaboration among all the parties involved, but this is not available regularly. Constraints created by the healthcare system may considerably hinder successful collaboration.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelCaregiversDementiaFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansLongitudinal StudiesLong-Term CareMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26017697
PMCPMC4446073
OpenAlexW1600681055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.