ArticleBMC primary care2025
Quantity of collaborative practices among healthcare and social professionals in Austrian primary healthcare: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary healthcare (PHC) serves as the initial point of contact for patients, providing a broad range of services including prevention, rehabilitation, and continuous care for manageable conditions. It relies on an interdisciplinary approach, integrating various healthcare and social professionals (HCSPs) such as physicians, therapists, nurses, and midwives to ensure comprehensive and patient-centered care. Despite its pivotal role in healthcare systems, variations in interprofessional collaboration (IPC) within PHC settings remain underexplored, particularly in Austria. This study aims to quantitatively examine the extent and areas of IPC in Austrian PHC settings.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted as part of the GWS-PHC Study, which investigates IPC in PHC. A total of 102 HCSPs who worked in PHC over the past five years were surveyed. The sample included 78 individuals from primary healthcare units (PHCUs) and 24 from extramural settings (ES) with strong ties to PHC. Data was collected on the frequency and area of IPC across various professional groups.
resultsThe study revealed considerable variability both in frequency and area in IPC in the Austrian PHC sector. While PHCUs tend to exhibit relatively high levels of collaboration, such integrative practices appear less pronounced in ES. In PHCUs, care coordination is often facilitated by joint efforts among diverse professional groups, whereas in ES, interprofessional interaction comparatively appears to be more constrained. Collaboration was strongest in areas such as long-term care for chronic conditions and health promotion, while areas such as fertility treatment were significantly under-represented in terms of interprofessional engagement.
conclusionsThe findings highlight the heterogeneity of IPC within Austrian PHC settings, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies to enhance collaboration in underrepresented areas. The study also underscores the importance of structural support and targeted educational programs to foster effective IPC, ensuring that healthcare providers are adequately prepared to meet the complex needs of patients in PHC settings. Furthermore, the study highlighted deficiencies in preparatory education regarding IPC competencies, indicating a need for curricular adaptations to integrate IPC training more effectively into educational programs.
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.