ReviewBMJ leader2024
Followership in interprofessional healthcare teams: a state-of-the-art narrative review.
Review in BMJ leader, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why followership matters in psychiatry: rebalancing our obsession with leadership.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- From Shadows to Spotlight: Courageous Followers Shape Leaders Perceptions and Influence Followers' Job Performance.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Collaborative and Shared Leadership Dynamics in Healthcare Action Teams: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2025Review
- Nurse Leaders' Perceptions of Followership Development Needs: A Descriptive Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Objective structured clinical examination to teach competency in planetary health care and management - a prospective observational study.BMC medical education · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA state-of-the-art (SotA) literature review-a type of narrative review- was conducted to answer: What historical developments led to current conceptualisations of followership in interprofessional healthcare teams (IHTs)?
designWorking from a constructivist orientation, SotA literature reviews generate a chronological overview of how knowledge evolved and presents this summary in three parts: (1) this is where we are now, (2) this is how we got here and (3) this is where we should go next. Using the SotA six-stage methodology, a total of 48 articles focused on followership in IHTs were used in this study.
resultsArticles about followership within IHTs first appeared in 1993. Until 2011, followership was framed as leader-centric; leaders used their position to influence followers to uphold their dictums. This perspective was challenged when scholars outside of healthcare emphasised the importance of team members for achieving goals, rejecting a myopic focus on physicians as leaders. Today, followership is an important focus of IHT research but two contradictory views are present: (1) followers are described as active team members in IHTs where shared leadership models prevail and (2) conceptually and practically, old ways of thinking about followership (ie, followers are passive team members) still occur. This incongruity has generated a variable set of qualities associated with good followership.
conclusionsLeadership and followership are closely linked concepts. For leaders and followers in today's IHTs to flourish, the focus must be on followers being active members of the team instead of passive members. Since theories are increasingly encouraging distributed leadership, shared leadership and/or situational leadership, then we must understand the followership work that all team members need to harness. We need to be cognizant of team dynamics that work within different contexts and use leadership and followership conceptualisations that are congruent with those contexts.
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.