ArticleBMJ open2025
Perception of primary-secondary care collaboration among general practitioners and specialists and the perceived potential for innovation: an exploratory qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur objective was to examine the barriers and facilitators encountered by primary and secondary healthcare professionals when collaborating at the care continuum between primary and secondary care. We aimed to identify specific challenges, observed benefits and proposed changes. By analysing these experiences and identifying opportunities for redesign, we aimed to define specific domains that could improve collaboration, thereby supporting sustainable access to and quality of care in the face of rising demand and constrained resources.
designA qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interview data guided by two domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), including Inner Setting-Tension for Change and Individual Characteristics, as well as selected implementation outcomes defined by Proctor
settingConsultation and communication between primary and secondary healthcare professionals in a Dutch urbanised area.
participants37 users of collaboration services (eg, telephone, correspondence) were interviewed between August 2021 and October 2022, including 14 general practitioners (GPs) (10 females, 4 males) and 23 specialists (10 females, 13 males).
resultsFour key domains with subthemes, subdivided per operation and CFIR domain, were identified as central to optimising the collaboration of professionals within the primary-secondary care continuum: (1) software and record integration; (2) seamless personal interaction; (3) eliminating a sense of 'us vs them' and (4) gaps in continuity of care.
conclusionsThis study reveals that healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care face similar collaboration challenges due to system-level issues and inadequate collaboration tools, leading to increased workload, miscommunication and reduced quality of care. Improving collaboration between GPs and specialists requires not only adjustments to individual services, but a comprehensive overhaul of the referral and back-referral process. A more integrated approach, addressing key domains, is crucial for enhancing care quality, streamlining workflows and improving health outcomes.
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.