Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27616961›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2016

Outcome Indicators on Interprofessional Collaboration Interventions for Elderly.

Giannoula Tsakitzidis, Olaf Timmermans, Nadine Callewaert, Veronique Verhoeven, Maja Lopez-Hartmann, Steven Truijen, Herman Meulemans, Paul Van Royen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Epistemic work and emotion in interprofessional practice: Lessons for interprofessional education.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Giannoula TsakitzidisDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care of the University of Antwerp, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Olaf TimmermansDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery Sciences, Centre for Research and Innovation in Care, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium and HZ University of Applied Sciences, Vlissingen, The Netherlands.
Nadine CallewaertDepartment of Health Sciences, Artesis-Plantijn University College of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Veronique VerhoevenDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care of the University of Antwerp, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Maja Lopez-HartmannDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care of the University of Antwerp, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Steven TruijenDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Herman MeulemansDepartment of Sociology and Research Centre for Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Paul Van RoyenDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care of the University of Antwerp, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeriatric care increasingly needs more multidisciplinary health care services to deliver the necessary complex and continuous care. The aim of this study is to summarize indicators of effective interprofessional outcomes for this population.

methodA systematic review is performed in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed (Medline), Embase, Cinahl and Psychinfo with a search until June 2014.

resultsOverall, 689 references were identified of which 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. All outcome indicators were summarized in three categories: collaboration, patient level outcome and costs. Seventeen out of 24 outcome indicators within the category of 'collaboration' reached significant difference in advantage of the intervention group. On 'patient outcome level' only 15 out of 32 outcome parameters met statistical significance. In the category of 'costs' only one study reached statistical significance. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe overall effects of interprofessional interventions for elderly are positive, but based on heterogeneous outcomes. Outcome indicators of interprofessional collaboration for elderly with a significant effect can be summarized in three main categories: 'collaboration', patient level' and 'costs'. For 'collaboration' the outcome indicators are key elements of collaboration, involved disciplines, professional and patient satisfaction and quality of care. On 'patient level' the outcome indicators are pain, fall incidence, quality of life, independence for daily life activities, depression and agitated behaviour, transitions, length of stay in hospital, mortality and period of rehabilitation. 'Costs' of interprofessional interventions on short- and long-term for elderly need further investigation. When organizing interprofessional collaboration or interprofessional education these outcome indicators can be considered as important topics to be addressed. Overall more research is needed to gain insight in the process of interprofessional collaboration and so to learn to work interprofessionally.

Indexed as

effectelderlyinterprofessional carequality of care

Identifiers

PMID27616961
PMCPMC5015552

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.