ArticleBJGP open2018
Challenges in measuring interprofessional-interorganisational collaboration with a questionnaire.
Article in BJGP open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of the Interprofessional Collaboration Practice Competency Scale (IPCPCS) for Clinical Nurses.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Learning collaboration at the primary-secondary care interface: a dual-method study to define design principles for interventions in postgraduate training programmes.BMC medical education · 2023Review
- The effects of positive leadership on quality of work and life of family doctors: The moderated role of culture.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Integrated Palliative Care for Nursing Home Residents: Exploring the Challenges in the Collaboration between Nursing Homes, Home Care and Hospitals.International journal of integrated care · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCollaboration between medical professionals from separate organisations is necessary to deliver good patient care. This care is influenced by professionals' perceptions about their collaboration. Until now, no instrument to measure such perceptions was available in the Netherlands. A questionnaire developed and validated in Spain was translated to assess perceptions about clinicians' collaboration in primary and secondary care in the Dutch setting.
aimValidation in the Dutch setting of a Spanish questionnaire that aimed to assess perceptions of clinicians about interorganisational collaboration. DESIGN &
settingAfter translation, cultural adaptation, and pre-testing, the questionnaire was sent to GPs and secondary care clinicians (SCCs) in three regions in the Netherlands. The responses of 445 responders were used to assess the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.
methodA confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed to study the construct validity of the hypothesised factor model underlying the questionnaire. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using weighted Kappa statistics.
resultsResults of the CFA indicated poor fit of the hypothesised factor structure. EFA, executed separately for each region, showed a highly unstable factor structure. The test-retest reliability analysis demonstrated low re-test reliability.
conclusionThe underlying factor structure of a Spanish questionnaire could not be reproduced. The construct validity and reliability of this questionnaire were insufficient to warrant use in the Dutch setting. This study demonstrates the need for evaluating validity and reliability of questionnaires in local settings.
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.