Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35431704›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

Practical Recommendations for Youth Care Professionals to Improve Evaluation and Reflection During Multidisciplinary Team Discussions: An Action Research Project.

L A Nooteboom, E A Mulder, R R J M Vermeiren, J Eilander, S I van den Driesschen, C H Z Kuiper

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

L A NooteboomLUMC Curium - Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center. Post Box 15, 2300 AA Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4063-4863
E A MulderLUMC Curium - Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center. Post Box 15, 2300 AA Leiden, The Netherlands.
R R J M VermeirenLUMC Curium - Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center. Post Box 15, 2300 AA Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8673-2207
J EilanderLUMC Curium - Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center. Post Box 15, 2300 AA Leiden, The Netherlands.
S I van den DriesschenLUMC Curium - Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center. Post Box 15, 2300 AA Leiden, The Netherlands.
C H Z KuiperLeiden University of Applied Sciences, Zernikedreef 11, 2311 CK Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6650-6288
Leiden University Medical Center · NLLeiden University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Integrated care for children and their families is often organized in multidisciplinary teams. In these teams, evaluation and reflection during Multidisciplinary Team Discussions (MTDs) are fundamental to learning, improving interprofessional collaboration, and increasing the quality of care. The effectiveness of MTDs varies widely in practice. Therefore, this study's objective was to identify facilitators and barriers for evaluation and reflection in MTDs, and concurrently formulate practical recommendations for professionals to improve their MTDs. Methods: This study's action research cycle consisted of a qualitative component to identify facilitators and barriers to evaluation and reflection in MTDs. We observed MTDs in multidisciplinary teams and interviewed professionals, parents, managers, and local policy makers. Concurrently, practical recommendations were iteratively developed during project team meetings, learning sessions, and a focus group. Results: Nine practical recommendations were formulated based on the identified facilitators and barriers, including preparatory activities to ensure purpose, timing, and relevant stakeholder involvement; specific points of attention during MTDs to ensure effectiveness; and tracking follow up steps after MTDs to ensure a learning process. Conclusion: The practical recommendations should be incorporated in daily practice to support professionals in Youth Care to increase satisfaction and improve effectiveness of evaluation and reflection during MTDs.

Indexed as

action researchevaluationintegrated careinterprofessional collaborationmultidisciplinaryreflection

Identifiers

PMID35431704
PMCPMC8973782
OpenAlexW4224305247

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.