ArticlePloS one2018
Measuring interdisciplinarity in clinical practice with IPC59, a modified and improved version of IPC65.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleInterdisciplinarity is considered a key concept in the management of complex cases in healthcare. However, working in interdisciplinary teams requires the integration of many concepts and a large amount of effort. To help healthcare managers and professionals identify the strengths and weaknesses of their interdisciplinary team and to ensure its continuous improvement, we developed a tool called the IPC65.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the IPC65.
methodsBased on a comprehensive review of the literature and qualitative and quantitative assessments, the IPC65 was developed. In this study, the analysis was based on 392 healthcare professionals and managers from short-term care settings who provided valid responses throughout the province of Quebec in Canada. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha values, and inter-item correlations were measured, and a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted. Item discrimination was used to provide an improved version of the IPC65.
resultsThe IPC65 showed good statistical results. The discriminant procedure provided the basis for shortening and improving the IPC65 to form the IPC59. Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.857 to 0.967 in IPC59, demonstrating very good reliability for all four dimensions. The PCA showed good validity.
conclusionThe IPC59 can be used to assess the degree of integration of key concepts leading to interdisciplinarity.
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.