Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28951532›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018

Interprofessional collaboration among care professionals in obstetrical care: are perceptions aligned?

Anita Romijn, Pim W Teunissen, Martine C de Bruijne, Cordula Wagner, Christianne J M de Groot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interprofessional collaboration is critical for woman-centred SRMNAH services.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Interprofessional perspectives on non-invasive respiratory support practices in extremely preterm infants: a Canadian survey.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Anita RomijnDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim W TeunissenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martine C de BruijneDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cordula WagnerDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Christianne J M de GrootDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn an obstetrical team, obstetricians, midwives and nurses work together in a dynamic and complex care setting. Different professional cultures can be a barrier for effective interprofessional collaboration. Although the different professional cultures in obstetrical care are well known, little is understood about discrepancies in mutual perceptions of collaboration. Similar perceptions of collaboration are important to ensure patient safety. We aimed to understand how different care professionals in an obstetrical team assess interprofessional collaboration in order to gain insight into the extent to which their perceptions are aligned.

methodsThis cross-sectional study was performed in the north-western region of the Netherlands. Care professionals from five hospitals and surrounding primary-care midwifery practices were surveyed. The respondents consisted of four groups of care professionals: obstetricians (n=74), hospital-based midwives known as clinical midwives (n=42), nurses (n=154) and primary-care midwives (n=109). The overall response rate was 80.8%. We used the Interprofessional Collaboration Measurement Scale (IPCMS) to assess perceived interprofessional collaboration. The IPCMS distinguishes three subscales: communication, accommodation and isolation. Data were analysed using non-parametrical tests.

resultsOverall, ratings of interprofessional collaboration were good. Obstetricians rated their collaboration with clinical midwives, nurses and primary-care midwives more positively than these three groups rated the collaboration with obstetricians. Discrepancies in mutual perceptions were most apparent in the isolation subscale, which is about sharing opinions, discussing new practices and respecting each other.

conclusionWe found relevant discrepancies in mutual perceptions of collaboration in obstetrical care in the Netherlands. Obstetrical care is currently being reorganised to enable more integrated care, which will have consequences for interprofessional collaboration. The findings of this study indicate opportunities for improvement especially in terms of perceived isolation.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDelivery, ObstetricInterprofessional RelationsPatient Care TeamCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Care SurveysHumansMidwiferyNetherlandsNursing StaffPhysiciansAttitudesObstetrics And GynecologyPatient Safety

Identifiers

PMID28951532
PMCPMC5867446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.