ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Participation in Multidisciplinary Teams Among Healthcare Professionals: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Tertiary Public Hospitals in China.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. 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.
- Incentive Configuration Pathways for Standardization of Cancer Multidisciplinary Teams in China: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Impact of Multidisciplinary Team Decision-Making on Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Tertiary Hospital Settings: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Healthcare professionals' participation is crucial for the efficient implementation of multidisciplinary team (MDT) collaboration models. We identified the key factors influencing healthcare professionals' preference to participate in MDTs in tertiary hospitals. Methods: To clarify the attributes and levels of the discrete choice experiment (DCE), we conducted a targeted literature review and conducted in-depth interviews with MDT service providers. Following this, a DCE was designed to evaluate healthcare professionals' preferences for MDT participation, and the influence of factors such as salary subsidies, leadership attention, patient participation, quality assessment, working intensity, and case complexity. A conditional logit model estimated the utility of each attribute. Willingness-to-pay estimates were derived by taking the negative ratio of the coefficients of non-economic and economic attributes. A series of policy simulation analyses were conducted. Results: Two hundred healthcare professionals completed the questionnaire, with 180 valid responses used for analysis. All attributes were statistically significant. Leadership attention and working intensity were the primary factors influencing staff willingness to participate in MDTs, followed by quality assessment and salary subsidies. Significant preference differences were observed between respondents; compared with mid-level staff, senior-level healthcare professionals believed patient engagement would be more helpful in boosting participation. The policy simulation showed that changing leadership attention from "neglect" to "emphasis" would increase the probability of staff choosing to participate in MDTs from 24.4% to 66.98%. Conclusion: Leadership attention was the primary concern for healthcare professionals in MDTs. To effectively motivate staff participation in MDTs, policymakers should adopt a holistic approach that considers work motivation and individual backgrounds, including competitive salary packages and a positive work environment. They should concurrently introduce MDT case complexity measurement tools to optimize resource allocation. Addressing staff members' unique needs and career aspirations by creating targeted training programs, pathways for advancement, and personalized career development plans are also crucial.
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.