Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27440181›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2016

'Gearing Up' to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework.

Gillian Mulvale, Mark Embrett, Shaghayegh Donya Razavi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

106 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Gillian MulvaleDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 4350 South Service Road, Rm 421, Burlington, ON, Canada, L7L 5R8. mulvale@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0546-6910
Mark EmbrettFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, CRL Bulding 282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 4K1.
Shaghayegh Donya RazaviFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, CRL Bulding 282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 4K1.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterprofessional Primary Care Teams (IPCTs) have been shown to benefit health systems and patients, particularly those patients with complex care needs. The literature suggests a wide range of factors that may influence collaboration in IPCTs, however the evidence base is unclear for many of these factors. To target improvement efforts, we identify studies that demonstrate an association between suggested factors and collaborative processes in IPCTs.

methodsA systematic review of 25 years of peer-review literature was conducted to identify studies that test associations between policy, organizational, care team and individual factors, and collaboration in IPCTs. We searched Medline, ProQuest subject, ProQuest abstract, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, and Embase electronic databases between January 1990 to June 2015 and hand-searched reference lists of identified articles.

resultsThe electronic searches identified 1421 articles, nine of which met inclusion criteria. Eighteen factors were significantly associated with collaboration in at least one article. We present the findings within a proposed conceptual model of interrelated 'gears'. The model offers a taxonomy of factors that policy makers (macro gear), organizational managers (meso gear), care teams (micro gear) and health professionals (individual gear) can adjust to improve interprofessional collaboration in IPC teams. Thirteen of the eighteen identified factors were within the micro gear, or team level of decision-making. These pertained to formal processes such as quality audits and group problem-solving; social processes such as open communication and supportive colleagues; team attitudes such as feeling part of the team; and team structure such as team size and having a collaboration champion or facilitator. Fewer policy (eg governance), organizational (eg information systems, organizational culture) or individual (eg belief in interprofessional collaboration care and personal flexibility) level factors were identified.

conclusionsThe findings suggest that individual IPCTs have opportunities to improve collaboration regardless of the organizational or policy context within which they operate. Evidence supports the importance of having a team vision and shared goals, formal quality processes, information systems, and professionals feeling part of the team. Few studies assessed associations between collaboration and macro and meso factors, or between factors across levels, which are priorities for future research.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterprofessional RelationsModels, TheoreticalPatient Care TeamAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingCommunicationGroup ProcessesHumansMedical AuditOrganizational PolicyPrimary Health CareProblem SolvingConceptual modelInterprofessional collaborationPolicymakingPrimary care team

Identifiers

PMID27440181
PMCPMC4955241

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.