Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38626144›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

The mobilisation of professional identity: A scoping and lexical review.

Ann Dadich, Stephanie Best

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Ann DadichSchool of Business, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5767-1794
Stephanie BestPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interprofessional care obliges different healthcare professions to share decision-making and sometimes, practices. Given established hierarchies, it can be difficult to promote interprofessional care, partly because of the need to reshape professional identities. Despite interest in effective interprofessional care, there is limited research on how professional identity can be mobilised to promote it. A scoping review as well as lexical review of academic publications was conducted to address this void. After searching seven academic databases and screening the identified publications, 22 publications met the inclusion criteria. They collectively reported on 22 interventions, most of which were used in healthcare. The scoping review suggested there is some evidence that professional identities can be mobilised. Yet, of the 22 interventions, only ten explicitly targeted professional identity. The most common intervention was a training or development program, followed by workplace redesign. The need for internal motivation to mobilise professional identity was reported as was the impact of external drivers, like extending the scope of practice. Extending these findings, the lexical review demonstrated that, among the 22 publications, the relationship between professional identity and mobilisation did not feature prominently within the discourse. Furthermore, it seems that geography matters-that is, while all the publications spoke of professional identity, they differed by region on how they did this. Given these findings, concentrated scholarship is needed on the relationship between professional identity and interprofessional care, lest interprofessional care programs have limited, sustained effect. Implications for scholars and practitioners are explicated.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansInterprofessional RelationsSocial IdentificationWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID38626144
PMCPMC11020764

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.