Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28122925›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2017

Interprofessional primary care team meetings: a qualitative approach comparing observations with personal opinions.

Jerôme Jean Jacques van Dongen, Marloes Amantia van Bokhoven, Ramon Daniëls, Stephanie Anna Lenzen, Trudy van der Weijden, Anna Beurskens

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

6 authors.

Jerôme Jean Jacques van DongenResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation for People with Chronic Illnesses, Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands and jerome.vandongen@zuyd.nl.
Marloes Amantia van BokhovenDepartment of Family Medicine, School for Public and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ramon DaniëlsResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation for People with Chronic Illnesses, Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands and.
Stephanie Anna LenzenResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation for People with Chronic Illnesses, Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands and.
Trudy van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, School for Public and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Anna BeurskensResearch Centre for Autonomy and Participation for People with Chronic Illnesses, Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands and.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings.

objectivesThis study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions.

methodsQualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis.

resultsMost participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation.

conclusionIPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members' awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges.

Indexed as

Group ProcessesInterdisciplinary CommunicationPrimary Health CareAttitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorHumansInterviews as TopicMotivationNetherlandsPatient Care TeamPatient-Centered CareQualitative ResearchCooperative behaviourinterdisciplinary communicationinterprofessional relationspatient care teamprimary health carequalitative research.

Identifiers

PMID28122925
PMCPMC5266085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.