Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30220896›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2018

A Scoping Review of Facilitators of Multi-Professional Collaboration in Primary Care.

Monica Sørensen, Una Stenberg, Lisa Garnweidner-Holme

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Grassroots development of interprofessional primary care teams: a qualitative study in Canadian family practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Measuring the determinants of implementation behavior in multiprofessional rehabilitation.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Facilitators and barriers in general practitioners' choice to work in primary care units in Austria: a qualitative study.Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Monica SørensenDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, St. Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, NO.ORCID 0000-0003-2503-6459
Una StenbergThe Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Learning and Mastery in Health, Oslo University Hospital, Trondheimsveien 235, 0586 Oslo, NO.
Lisa Garnweidner-HolmeDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, St. Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, NO.
Universidad Metropolitana · PR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMulti-professional collaboration (MPC) is essential for the delivery of effective and comprehensive care services. As in other European countries, primary care in Norway is challenged by altered patient values and the increased expectations of health administrations to participate in team-based care. This scoping review reports on the organisational, processual, relational and contextual facilitators of collaboration between general practitioners (GP) and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary care.

methodsA systematic search in specialist and Scandinavian databases retrieved 707 citations. Following the inclusion criteria, nineteen studies were considered eligible and examined according to Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews. The retrieved literature was analysed employing a content analysis approach. A group of stakeholders commented on study findings to enhance study validity.

resultsPrimary care research into MPC is immature and emerging in Norway. Our analysis showed that introducing common procedures for documentation and handling of patient data, knowledge sharing, and establishing local specialised multi-professional teams, facilitates MPC. The results indicate that advancements in work practices benefit from an initial system-level foundation with focus on local management and MPC leadership. Further, our results show that it is preferable to enhance collaborative skills before introducing new professional teams, roles and responsibilities. Investing in professional relations could build trust, respect and continuity. In this respect, sufficient time must be allocated during the working day for professionals to share reflections and engage in mutual learning.

conclusionThere is a paucity of research concerning the application and management of MPC in Norwegian primary care. The work practices and relations between professionals, primary care institutions and stakeholders on a macro level is inadequate. Health care is a complex system in which HCPs need managerial support to harvest the untapped benefits of MPC in primary care. As international research demonstrates, local managers must be supported with infrastructure on a macro level to understand the embedding of practice and look at what professionals actually do and how they work.

Indexed as

multi-professional collaborationmulti-professional communicationprimary careteam-based care

Identifiers

PMID30220896
PMCPMC6137624
OpenAlexW2889192862

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.