Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27490299›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2016

Collaboration and entanglement: An actor-network theory analysis of team-based intraprofessional care for patients with advanced heart failure.

A McDougall, M Goldszmidt, E A Kinsella, S Smith, L Lingard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Making Decision-Making Visible-Teaching the Process of Evaluating Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  9. 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

5 authors.

A McDougallHealth & Rehabilitation Sciences-Health Professional Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada; Centre for Education Research & Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada. Electronic address: amcdougall@royalcollege.ca.
M GoldszmidtCentre for Education Research & Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada; Dept. of Medicine, Division of Internal Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
E A KinsellaHealth & Rehabilitation Sciences-Occupational Therapy/Health Professional Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada; Centre for Education Research & Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
S SmithDept. of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
L LingardCentre for Education Research & Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada; Dept. of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 123234-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite calls for more interprofessional and intraprofessional team-based approaches in healthcare, we lack sufficient understanding of how this happens in the context of patient care teams. This multi-perspective, team-based interview study examined how medical teams negotiated collaborative tensions. From 2011 to 2013, 50 patients across five sites in three Canadian provinces were interviewed about their care experiences and were asked to identify members of their health care teams. Patient-identified team members were subsequently interviewed to form 50 "Team Sampling Units" (TSUs), consisting of 209 interviews with patients, caregivers and healthcare providers. Results are gathered from a focused analysis of 13 TSUs where intraprofessional collaborative tensions involved treating fluid overload, or edema, a common HF symptom. Drawing on actor-network theory (ANT), the analysis focused on intraprofessional collaboration between specialty care teams in cardiology and nephrology. The study found that despite a shared narrative of common purpose between cardiology teams and nephrology teams, fluid management tools and techniques formed sites of collaborative tension. In particular, care activities involved asynchronous clinical interpretations, geographically distributed specialist care, fragmented forms of communication, and uncertainty due to clinical complexity. Teams 'disentangled' fluid in order to focus on its physiological function and mobilisation. Teams also used distinct 'framings' of fluid management that created perceived collaborative tensions. This study advances collaborative entanglement as a conceptual framework for understanding, teaching, and potentially ameliorating some of the tensions that manifest during intraprofessional care for patients with complex, chronic disease.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterprofessional RelationsCanadaCardiologyHeart FailureHumansNephrologyPatient Care TeamWater-Electrolyte BalanceActor-network theoryCanadaEntanglementFluid managementHeart failureIntraprofessional collaborationPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID27490299
PMCPMC5650482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.