ArticleBMC primary care2023
The development of an instrument to measure interprofessional collaboration competency for primary care teams in the district health system of health region 2, Thailand.
Article in BMC primary care, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and content validation of an interprofessional collaboration model for child sexual abuse prevention in primary health care.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of the Interprofessional Collaboration Practice Competency Scale (IPCPCS) for Clinical Nurses.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Availability of residents and preceptors for interprofessional practices: mixed methods study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence shows that interprofessional collaboration (IPC) practice contributes to the quality of health care. However, there are limited instruments to assess IPC in providing primary care in the district health system (DHS) in Thailand. The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess the IPC competency of primary care team members in DHSs.
methodsThis study was designed as an exploratory mixed methods study. In the qualitative phase, 37 participants, including policymakers, practitioners, and academics with experience in primary care, were involved. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, and trustworthiness was verified by triangulation and peer debriefing. In the quantitative phase, content validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability were conducted, and the final version of the questionnaire was evaluated with 497 participants.
resultsThe findings showed an I-CVI range of 0.86-1.00 and S-CVI/UA = 0.87 for 49 items with a 5-point Likert scale. EFA suggested six factors: 1) collaborative teamwork, 2) population- and community-centred care, 3) communication and mutual respect, 4) clarification of roles and responsibilities, 5) interprofessional reflection, and 6) interprofessional values and mixed skills. In the CFA results, the model fit indices were acceptable (CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.043) or slightly less than the goodness-of-fit values (GFI = 0.84). All subscales showed acceptable Cronbach's alpha values with a range of 0.86-0.94.
conclusionsThe developed IPC competency instrument was confirmed its validity and reliability that contributes to assessing the IPC competency of primary care teams in DHSs. This information provides evidence to support tailored intervention to promote the IPC competency of primary care team work to achieve a common goal.
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.