Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41181853›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025

Can multidisciplinary teams improve the quality of primary care? A scoping review.

Shona Marie Bates, Jialing Lin, Luke N Allen, Michael Wright, Michael Kidd

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Taking multidisciplinary team care from policy into primary care practice.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Shona Marie BatesInternational Centre for Future Health Systems, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Jialing LinInternational Centre for Future Health Systems, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Luke N AllenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Michael WrightInternational Centre for Future Health Systems, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Michael KiddInternational Centre for Future Health Systems, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is increasing use of multi-disciplinary teams (MDT) to increase the quality of and access to primary care. For example, the promotion of MDTs in primary care is one of four recent major policy recommendations in Australia. This review sought to understand the impact of MDT on the quality of primary care, including continuity of care, and the enablers and barriers to implementation. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken of peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1 January 2014 and 13 August 2024. It is registered at OSF: DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/23QYU. A search of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PAIS, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases yielded 1603 records or 770 articles after duplicates were removed; 75 full-texts were reviewed and 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. The search was repeated for the period 13 August 2024 to 13 August 2025, which yielded a further 282 records after duplicates were removed; 19 full-texts were reviewed and an additional 12 papers met the inclusion criteria reflecting the increasing interest in MDT-care in primary care reforms. Data extracted from the 39 papers in scope included the characteristics of MDT care reported, the outcomes observed, and the enablers and barriers to implementation. A socio-ecological model was used to examine the system, organisational, professional and patient level factors that enabled MDT-care in general practice. Findings: Data showed the models of MDT-care varied substantially. They ranged from multiple providers working together to care for a patient, to interprofessional teams providing patients the option to see an alternative provider. Analysis showed mixed outcomes from MDTs in primary care, driven by contextual, policy, organisational, professional and patient factors. In some cases, MDT strengthened the management of chronic disease. In other cases, MDT reduced continuity of care by fragmenting relational continuity. MDT care also impacted access to care, comprehensiveness of care, and coordination of care-in some cases positively, and other cases negatively. Interpretation: While there may be common preconditions at the systems, organisational, professional and patient level, effective MDT-care was likely to be goal and context specific. The introduction of MDTs will require careful planning and implementation to ensure that the potential benefits of MDT are realised and that it does not compromise the quality of primary care. Funding: The International Centre for Future Health Systems is supported by funding from The Ian Potter Foundation.

Indexed as

Health system reformMulti-disciplinary careMulti-disciplinary teamsPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID41181853
PMCPMC12572791

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.