ArticleBMC family practice2016
Do primary care professionals agree about progress with implementation of primary care teams: results from a cross sectional study.
Article 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 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of an occupational therapy-led self-management support programme for multimorbidity in primary care.Family practice · 2022Trial
- Effect of the OPTIMAL programme on self-management of multimorbidity in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Trial
- "Exploring vertical task shifting: perceptions and experiences of nurses and general practitioners in Norwegian general practice - a qualitative study".Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Balancing between dual belongings when organised into interdisciplinary teams, with the trust model as the context: A qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Primary care transformation in Scotland: a qualitative study of GPs' and multidisciplinary team members' views.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Article
- Identifying key policy objectives for strong primary care: a cross-sectional study.Primary health care research & development · 2023Article
- Australian general practitioner perceptions to sharing clinical data for secondary use: a mixed method approach.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Implementing community participation via interdisciplinary teams in primary care: An Irish case study in practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care is the cornerstone of healthcare reform with policies across jurisdictions promoting interdisciplinary team working. The effective implementation of such health policies requires understanding the perspectives of all actors. However, there is a lack of research about health professionals' views of this process. This study compares Primary Healthcare Professionals' perceptions of the effectiveness of the Primary Care Strategy and Primary Care Team (PCT) implementation in Ireland.
methodsDesign and Setting: e-survey of (1) General Practitioners (GPs) associated with a Graduate Medical School (N = 100) and (2) Primary Care Professionals in 3 of 4 Health Service Executive (HSE) regions (N = 2309). After piloting, snowball sampling was used to administer the survey. Descriptive analysis was carried out using SPSS. Ratings across groups were compared using non-parametric tests.
resultsThere were 569 responses. Response rates varied across disciplines (71 % for GPs, 22 % for other Primary Healthcare Professionals (PCPs). Respondents across all disciplines viewed interdisciplinary working as important. Respondents agreed on lack of progress of implementation of formal PCTs (median rating of 2, where 1 is no progress at all and 5 is complete implementation). GPs were more negative about the effectiveness of the Strategy to promote different disciplines to work together (median rating of 2 compared to 3 for clinical therapists and 3.5 for nurses, P = 0.001). Respondents identified resources and GP participation as most important for effective team working. Protected time for meetings and capacity to manage workload for meetings were rated as very important factors for effective team working by GPs, clinical therapists and nurses. A building for co-location of teams was rated as an important factor by nurses and clinical therapists though GPs rated it as less important. Payment to attend meetings and contractual arrangements were considered important factors by GPs but not by nurses or clinical therapists.
conclusionPCPs and GPs agree there is limited PCT implementation. GPs are most negative about this implementation. There is some disagreement about which resources are most important for effective PCT working. These findings provide valuable data for clinicians and policy makers about implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care.
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.