Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34220396›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2021

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators.

Cloe Rawlinson, Tania Carron, Christine Cohidon, Chantal Arditi, Quan Nha Hong, Pierre Pluye, Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux, Ingrid Gilles

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 150 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
53.1field-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

150 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 293 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cloe RawlinsonCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Route de Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7210-0049
Tania CarronCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Route de Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1263-7079
Christine CohidonCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Route de Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Chantal ArditiCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Route de Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2799-8950
Quan Nha HongDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858, Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2576-5750
Pierre PluyeDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858, Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9274-7720
Isabelle Peytremann-BridevauxCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Route de Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6514-8781
Ingrid GillesCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Route de Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2051-4749
Centre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, Lausanne · CHMcGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings.

methodsAn overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual).

resultsTwenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution.

conclusionsThe range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Indexed as

barrierscollaborationfacilitatorsinterprofessionaloverviewprimary carereview

Identifiers

PMID34220396
PMCPMC8231480
OpenAlexW3173891675

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.