Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40148796›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2025

General practitioners' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in Belgium: a qualitative study.

Hubert Jamart, Dionne Kringos, Dajana Tare, Aishwarya Chokshi, Anouk Tans, Isabelle Heymans, Ann Van den Bruel, Jean-Luc Belche

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Hubert JamartDepartment of General Practice, Research Unit Primary Care & Health, University of Liège, 13 Avenue Hippocrate, Quartier de L'Hôpital B23, Liège, 4000, Belgium. hjamart@uliege.be.
Dionne KringosDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Associate Professor in Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Dajana TareDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Aishwarya ChokshiDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Anouk TansDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabelle HeymansDepartment of General Practice, Research Unit Primary Care & Health, University of Liège, 13 Avenue Hippocrate, Quartier de L'Hôpital B23, Liège, 4000, Belgium.
Ann Van den BruelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jean-Luc BelcheDepartment of General Practice, Research Unit Primary Care & Health, University of Liège, 13 Avenue Hippocrate, Quartier de L'Hôpital B23, Liège, 4000, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBelgian primary care is facing significant challenges due to increasing healthcare demands and an overall decline in the workforce. Most general practitioners (GPs) work solo or in mono-disciplinary practices, leading to suboptimal outcomes in areas such as preventive care and health promotion. In response, the Ministry of Health introduced a "New-Deal" for GPs, which includes additional funding to support innovative practice organisation models. A think tank of GP representatives was established to guide the initiative, with input from practising GPs gathered for further insight. This study aims to identify the professionals needed to support GPs in daily practice, define their roles, and explore the conditions necessary for integrating them into the GP-centred model of care.

methodsEleven focus groups were conducted with 122 GPs, ensuring geographical and linguistic diversity across Belgium. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure a diverse range of organisational models across the country. A structured focus group guide was designed, incorporating three scenarios to examine tasks commonly encountered in GP practices. Data analysis was conducted using a codebook developed through an inductive approach.

resultsGPs expressed a preference for relatively small-scale teams, generally consisting of nurses and receptionists. The role of a practice assistant was more ambiguously defined, positioned between clinical and administrative responsibilities. Key tools for effective team integration included co-location, well-defined protocols, a shared electronic health record, care coordination, and unified logistical management, all of which are critical to fostering multidisciplinary collaboration.

conclusionsThis study explores Belgian GPs' preferences for integrating healthcare professionals into their practices, with team composition adjusted to workload and patient needs. However, the traditional autonomy of practice design may hinder change. Future research is needed to refine financial models and integration tools for collaborative care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorGeneral PractitionersInterprofessional RelationsPatient Care TeamAdultBelgiumFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchGeneral practitionersInterprofessional collaborationNursesPractice assistantsPractice organisation modelsReceptionistsTeam integration

Identifiers

PMID40148796
PMCPMC11948854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.