SynthesisBMC health services research2025
Failure or success of self-organizing teams in long-term care organizations: an integrative systematic literature review on the role of the organization structure.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of self-organizing teams is increasing in long-term care organizations. These teams have been implemented for various reasons among which improving the quality of care and the quality of working life. However, self-organizing teams are not always delivering these favorable outcomes. To evaluate the success of self-organizing teams, it is important to understand the reasons for their varying levels of success in long-term care organizations. In the long-term care context, little is known about the role of the organization structure in self-organizing team success, while organization theory indicates that this factor strongly affects their outcomes.
methodsAn integrative systematic review was conducted across four electronic databases: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Business Source Complete, and Web of Science, from inception until May 2023. Reference lists of the included studies were screened to identify other relevant studies. Quality appraisal was undertaken using MMAT for empirical studies and JBI checklists for systematic reviews, and text and opinion. Thematic analysis was conducted to synthesize the findings.
resultsForty-one articles were included. Findings were categorized based on structure characteristics that we extracted from organization theory: centralization, specialization, formalization, and functional concentration. We found different forms of each structure characteristic and their influence on self-organizing teams. A higher degree of these structure characteristics generally hinders self-organizing team success, meaning lower quality of care and lower quality of working life. Conversely, a lower degree of these characteristics generally facilitates self-organizing team success, meaning higher quality of care and higher quality of working life. However, the findings also highlight that structure characteristics can reach detrimentally low degrees when too many tasks and responsibilities are allocated to the teams, diminishing self-organizing team success.
conclusionsWhile self-organizing teams hold promise for enhancing the quality of care and improving the quality of working life, they are not always successful in practice. This integrative systematic review highlights the importance of organization structure characteristics for self-organizing team success in long-term care organizations. REGISTRATION: This review was registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023418288).
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.