Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37139368›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Development of a toolkit to improve interprofessional collaboration and integration in primary care using qualitative interviews and co-design workshops.

Muhammed Mustafa Sirimsi, Hans De Loof, Kris Van den Broeck, Kristel De Vliegher, Paul Van Royen, Peter Pype, Kristel Driessens, Emily Verté, Roy Remmen, Peter Van Bogaert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The development of the PET@home toolkit: An experience-based co-design method study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024
    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

10 authors.

Muhammed Mustafa SirimsiDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health (FAMPOP), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Hans De LoofLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Kris Van den BroeckDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health (FAMPOP), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Kristel De VliegherDepartment of Nursing, White-Yellow Cross of Flanders, Brussels, Belgium.
Paul Van RoyenDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health (FAMPOP), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Peter PypeCenter for Family Medicine, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kristel DriessensDepartment of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Emily VertéDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health (FAMPOP), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Roy RemmenDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health (FAMPOP), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Peter Van BogaertCentre of Research and Innovations in Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite numerous attempts to improve interprofessional collaboration and integration (IPCI) in primary care, patients, care providers, researchers, and governments are still looking for tools and guidance to do this more efficiently. To address these issues, we decided to develop a generic toolkit, based on sociocracy and psychological safety principles, to guide care providers in their collaboration within and outside their practice. Finally, we reasoned that, in order to obtain integrated primary care, different strategies should be combined. Methods: Development of the toolkit consisted of a multiyear co-development process. Data originating from 65 care providers, through 13 in-depth interviews and five focus groups were analysed and subsequently evaluated in eight co-design workshop sessions, organised with a total of 40 academics, lecturers, care providers and members of the Flemish patient association. Findings from the qualitative interviews and co-design workshops were gradually, and inductively adapted and transformed into the content for the IPCI toolkit. Results: Ten themes were identified: (i) awareness of the importance of interprofessional collaboration, (ii) the need for a self-assessment tool to measure team performance, (iii) preparing a team to use the toolkit, (iv) enhancing psychological safety, (v) developing and determining consultation techniques, (vi) shared decision making, (vii) developing workgroups to tackle specific (neighbourhood) problems, (viii) how to work patient-centred, (ix) how to integrate a new team member, and (x) getting ready to implement the IPCI toolkit. From these themes, we developed a generic toolkit, consisting of eight modules. Conclusion: In this paper, we describe the multiyear co-development process of a generic toolkit for the improvement of interprofessional collaboration. Inspired by a mix of interventions from in and outside healthcare, a modular open toolkit was produced that includes aspects of Sociocracy, concepts as psychological safety, a self-assessment tool and other modules concerned with meetings, decision-making, integrating new team members and population health. Upon implementation, evaluation and further development and improvement, this compounded intervention should have a beneficial effect on the complex problem of interprofessional collaboration in primary care.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHumansPrimary Health Caregeneral practiceintegrated careinterprofessional collaborationprimary carepsychological safetypublic healthsociocracy

Identifiers

PMID37139368
PMCPMC10149845

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.