ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Are we ready to collaborate? The interprofessional collaborative competencies of healthcare professionals in the Global South context.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Clinical Competence Through Interprofessional Education: Perspectives and Experiences of Healthcare Professionals and Clinical Educators.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Validation of the Interprofessional Collaboration Practice Competency Scale (IPCPCS) for Clinical Nurses.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
Background: Current evidence of interprofessional collaboration suggests the importance of measuring and identifying the current state of the health professions' interprofessional competencies. Therefore, this study was aimed at measuring the interprofessional competencies of health professionals in the Global South context using the validated CICS29. Materials and methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving 300 healthcare professionals of a newly established teaching hospital. Prior to the measurement of interprofessional competencies, the 29-items CICS29, which has been translated into Indonesian language, was revalidated using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The 29 items of CICS29 were grouped into six subscales and each item was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Data on gender, age, type of profession, and the length of working experience was also collected to identify whether discernible differences between grouping variables exists. Results: Prior to measuring the interprofessional competencies, the validity of the instrument was established. Based on the CFA, the same six-factor model was found in the current study. The Indonesian CICS29 was reliable, with Cronbach alpha values of 0.921 for the whole instrument and that of each subscale ranged between 0.656 and 0.726. The mean total score of CICS29 was 128.53 (out of 145), ranged from 123 to 133.40 obtained by pharmacists and dentists respectively. No significant differences of CICS29 scores were found between grouping variables. Conclusion: The current study has revealed relatively good interprofessional competencies of healthcare professionals working in a newly established teaching hospital in the Global South healthcare context. Measuring the interprofessional competencies serves as baseline for further intervention to nurture and maintain collaborative practice. In addition, the current study has further proven the cross-cultural validity of CICS29, thus appropriate to be utilized in different setting and context.
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.