Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29281980›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

Who is on the primary care team? Professionals' perceptions of the conceptualization of teams and the underlying factors: a mixed-methods study.

Kirti D Doekhie, Martina Buljac-Samardzic, Mathilde M H Strating, Jaap Paauwe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The different perspectives of patients, informal caregivers and professionals on patient involvement in primary care teams. A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kirti D DoekhieErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands. doekhie@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-2292-0687
Martina Buljac-SamardzicErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands.
Mathilde M H StratingErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands.
Jaap PaauweErasmus School of Health Policy and Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLTilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to the growing prevalence of elderly patients with multi-morbidity living at home, there is an increasing need for primary care professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds to collaborate as primary care teams. However, it is unclear how primary care professionals conceptualize teams and what underlying factors influence their perception of being part of a team. Our research question is: What are primary care professionals' perceptions of teams and team membership among primary care disciplines and what factors influence their perceptions?

methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study in the Dutch primary care setting. First, a survey study of 152 professionals representing 12 primary care disciplines was conducted, focusing on their perceptions of which disciplines are part of the team and the degree of relational coordination between professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds. Subsequently, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 professionals representing 5 primary care disciplines to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying factors influencing their perceptions and the (mis)alignment between these perceptions.

resultsMisalignments were found between perceptions regarding which disciplines are members of the team and the relational coordination between disciplines. For example, general practitioners were viewed as part of the team by helping assistants, (district) nurses, occupational therapists and geriatric specialized practice nurses, whereas the general practitioners themselves only considered geriatric specialized practice nurses to be part of their team. Professionals perceive multidisciplinary primary care teams as having multiple inner and outer layers. Three factors influence their perception of being part of a team and acting accordingly: a) knowing the people you work with, b) the necessity for knowledge exchange and c) sharing a holistic view of caregiving.

conclusionResearch and practice should take into account the misalignment between primary care professionals' perceptions of primary care teams, as our study notes variations in the conceptualization of primary care teams. To enhance teamwork between professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds, professionals acknowledge the importance of three underlying conditions: team familiarity, regular and structured knowledge exchange between all professionals involved in the care process and realizing and believing in the added value for patients of working as a team.

Indexed as

General PracticePatient Care TeamPrimary Health CareAdultClinical CompetenceFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHolistic HealthHumansInterpersonal RelationsInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesMixed-methodsPrimary carePrimary care professionalsPrimary care teamsRelational coordinationTeam fluidityTeamwork

Identifiers

PMID29281980
PMCPMC5745958
OpenAlexW2746143638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.