Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29069376›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2018

Contextual levers for team-based primary care: lessons from reform interventions in five jurisdictions in three countries.

Grant M Russell, William L Miller, Jane M Gunn, Jean-Frederic Levesque, Mark F Harris, William E Hogg, Cathie M Scott, Jenny R Advocat, Lisa Halma, Sabrina M Chase and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Multifaceted intervention to increase the delivery of alcohol brief interventions in primary care: a mixed-methods process analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Transforming primary care: scoping review of research and practice.Journal of integrated care (Brighton, England) · 2018
    Article
  17. 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

11 authors.

Grant M RussellSouthern Academic Primary Care Research Unit, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
William L MillerDepartment of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, USA.
Jane M GunnDepartment of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jean-Frederic LevesqueCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Mark F HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales Australia, Sydney, Australia.
William E HoggC.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Cathie M ScottAlberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research, Edmonton, Canada.
Jenny R AdvocatSouthern Academic Primary Care Research Unit, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Lisa HalmaZone Analytics and Reporting Services, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Canada.
Sabrina M ChaseRutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS), Rutgers School of Nursing, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA.
Benjamin F CrabtreeDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, USA.

Funding

CIHR PCH—103625
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Most Western nations have sought primary care (PC) reform due to the rising costs of health care and the need to manage long-term health conditions. A common reform-the introduction of inter-professional teams into traditional PC settings-has been difficult to implement despite financial investment and enthusiasm. Objective: To synthesize findings across five jurisdictions in three countries to identify common contextual factors influencing the successful implementation of teamwork within PC practices. Methods: An international consortium of researchers met via teleconference and regular face-to-face meetings using a Collaborative Reflexive Deliberative Approach to re-analyse and synthesize their published and unpublished data and their own work experience. Studies were evaluated through reflection and facilitated discussion to identify factors associated with successful teamwork implementation. Matrices were used to summarize interpretations from the studies. Results: Seven common levers influence a jurisdiction's ability to implement PC teams. Team-based PC was promoted when funding extended beyond fee-for-service, where care delivery did not require direct physician involvement and where governance was inclusive of non-physician disciplines. Other external drivers included: the health professional organizations' attitude towards team-oriented PC, the degree of external accountability required of practices, and the extent of their links with the community and medical neighbourhood. Programs involving outreach facilitation, leadership training and financial support for team activities had some effect. Conclusion: The combination of physician dominance and physician aligned fee-for-service payment structures provide a profound barrier to implement team-oriented PC. Policy makers should carefully consider the influence of these and our other identified drivers when implementing team-oriented PC.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformInterdisciplinary CommunicationQuality Assurance, Health CareAustraliaCanadaHumansOrganizational InnovationPatient Care TeamPrimary Health CareProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29069376
PMCPMC5965082

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.