ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating interprofessional primary care teams in high-income countries: A scoping review protocol on the conceptualization and measurement of team functioning, effectiveness, performance and collaboration in primary care.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe delivery of primary care (PC) services by interprofessional teams serves as the cornerstone for building high-performing PC systems. Interprofessional team-based care is a collaborative approach to primary care delivery where healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines work together to provide comprehensive and coordinated care. Despite this recognition, the assessment of the impact of interprofessional PC teams is limited or mixed. There is a lack of clarity on how to define and measure team functioning, collaboration, performance, and effectiveness in PC, posing challenges for the evaluation of interprofessional PC teams. This review aims to dissect and analyze the definitions (conceptualizations and operationalization), measures, and measurement methodologies employed in defining and evaluating team functioning, collaboration, performance, and team effectiveness in PC. In the context of interprofessional PC teams, this review will answer the following questions: 1) How are the terms team functioning, performance, effectiveness, and collaboration conceptualized? 2) What are measures of team functioning, performance, effectiveness, and collaboration? 3) What instruments are used to evaluate team functioning, performance, effectiveness, and collaboration?.
methodsA systematic approach will be undertaken to conduct this review. A comprehensive search across various academic databases, including PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, Scopus, and Web of Science, will be conducted. Keywords such as "team functioning," "performance measurement," "team effectiveness," "team collaboration," "primary care," and "primary healthcare" will be utilized to ensure the inclusion of relevant studies. Inclusion criteria will be established to filter studies focusing explicitly on interprofessional teams. The review will encompass both qualitative and quantitative studies, ensuring a holistic understanding of the subject matter. By synthesizing this information, the review aims to present an encompassing overview of the conceptualization, measurement and instruments employed to evaluate team functioning, performance, effectiveness, and collaboration within PC settings. DISCUSSION: Globally, governments are investing in the implementation of interprofessional PC teams. The lack of clear definitions and measurement of team outcomes underscores the importance of conducting a comprehensive review. This review will aim to address this gap in knowledge and help inform practice and policy, ultimately contributing to optimizing team functioning, performance, effectiveness, and collaboration within PC settings.
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.