ArticlePloS one2017
A concordance-based study to assess doctors' and nurses' mental models in Internal Medicine.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inpatient Understanding of Their Care Team and Receipt of Mixed Messages: a Two-Site Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Understanding the clinical reasoning processes involved in the management of multimorbidity in an ambulatory setting: study protocol of a stimulated recall research.BMC medical education · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interprofessional collaboration between doctors and nurses is based on team mental models, in particular for each professional's roles. Our objective was to identify factors influencing concordance on the expectations of doctors' and nurses' roles and responsibilities in an Internal Medicine ward. Using a dataset of 196 doctor-nurse pairs (14x14 = 196), we analyzed choices and prioritized management actions of 14 doctors and 14 nurses in six clinical nurse role scenarios, and in five doctor role scenarios (6 options per scenario). In logistic regression models with a non-nested correlation structure, we evaluated concordance among doctors and nurses, and adjusted for potential confounders (including prior experience in Internal Medicine, acuteness of case and gender). Concordance was associated with number of female professionals (adjusted OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.73), for acute situations (adjusted OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.62), and in doctor role scenarios (adjusted OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.65). Prior experience and country of training were not significant predictors of concordance. In conclusion, our concordance-based approach helped us identify areas of lower concordance in expected doctor-nurse roles and responsibilities, particularly in non-acute situations, which can be targeted by future interprofessional, educational interventions.
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.