Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28270205›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

GPs' and dentists' experiences and expectations of interprofessional collaboration: findings from a qualitative study in Germany.

Khira Sippli, Monika A Rieger, Fabian Huettig

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05454384 (Evaluation of Consultation Contents Directed From a University Training and Research Hospital to an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT05454384 completednot on this map

Evaluation of Consultation Contents Directed From a University Training and Research Hospital to an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic

TypeobservationalSponsorTokat Gaziosmanpasa UniversityRan2013 to 2022Enrolled178ConditionsReferral and ConsultationArmsMedical Record Examination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Utilisation Of Dental And Medical Care Among Children And Adolescents With And Without Special Support Needs].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  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

3 authors.

Khira SippliDepartment of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dentistry, Oral Medicine, and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Osianderstr. 2-8, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Monika A RiegerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Wilhelmstr. 27, D-72074, Tübingen, Germany.
Fabian HuettigDepartment of Prosthodontics, Centre for Dentistry, Oral Medicine, and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University Hospital Tuebingen, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, Osianderstr. 2-8, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany. fabian.huettig@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7253-5923

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAgainst the background of well-described associations between oral and general health, collaboration between dentists and general practitioners (GP) is crucial to provide therapeutic and preventive patient care. However, in the German health system, GPs and dentists are organizationally separated, implying that interprofessional collaboration can only occur informally and on a voluntary basis. Given the scarce evidence of interprofessional collaboration between dentists and GPs, an explorative study was conducted. This paper outlines the findings of this study with regard to GPs' and dentists' experiences and expectations of interprofessional collaboration.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 15) and dentists (n = 13) from three structurally different regions in Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. The interview guide included questions on occasions, expectations and experiences of interprofessional collaboration. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.

resultsBoth GPs and dentists reported perceived knowledge deficits of the other profession with regard to medication, particularly anticoagulants and bisphosphonates, as well as systemic and general respectively dental diseases. Expectations regarding the scope of collaboration diverge: whereas dentists were interested in extending collaboration, most GPs saw no need for collaboration.

conclusionsThe perceived medical knowledge deficits of the other profession as well as divergent expectations concerning the scope of collaboration hinder profound and regular interprofessional collaboration between GPs and dentists. These perceived knowledge deficits may be rooted in the separate education of dentists and GPs in Germany. Fostering interprofessional education is a promising way to improve cooperation between GPs and dentists in the long term.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInterprofessional RelationsCooperative BehaviorDentistryDentistsFemaleGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionPhysician's RoleProfessional PracticeQualitative ResearchCooperative behaviourDentistryGeneral practitionersInterprofessional collaborationNon communicable diseasesOral healthPeriodontitisPrimary health care physiciansProfessional identitySystemic diseases

Identifiers

PMID28270205
PMCPMC5341464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.