ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Relational work in implementation: a qualitative analysis of intra- and inter- professional strategies leveraged in genomic multidisciplinary teams.
Article in Implementation science communications, 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.
- What influenced the use of embedded genetic expertise by non-genetic clinicians: a qualitative study using the diffusion of innovations theory and theoretical domains framework.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
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
backgroundRelationships are foundational to successful implementation of innovations in healthcare. In genomic medicine, multidisciplinary teams with good communication are most effective to provide safe genomic care; however, working together could be challenging due to the distinct work culture, worldviews, and clinical approaches held by different professional groups. In this paper, we explored the various strategies used to build relationships and foster collaboration as part of a Change program that supported the use of genomic testing and counselling in specialty areas.
methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 36 participants across 3 professional categories (genetic counsellors, medical specialists, and nurses/allied health workers) to ask about their experiences working together in innovative models of genomic care across 7 clinical specialties. Data analysis was conducted through a two-staged inductive and deductive coding process: firstly to identify the categories based on the attributes of the Relational Theory and then coded against the Theoretical Model for Trusting Relationships and Implementation (the 'Model').
resultsEight out of nine strategies to build/strengthen relationships described in the 'Model' were identified in the interview data. They included three technical strategies and five relational strategies. The inter-connections were present between relational and technical strategies, as well as within the relational category, whereby some served to reinforce one another. Two additional strategies emerged from the interview data but were not included within the 'Model,' including: negotiating boundary work and accepting differences used at inter-professional level. Specifically, genetic counsellors either reconstructed the professional boundary by taking over tasks beyond their role or adopted a boundary-preserving strategy to balance the social order within the team.
conclusionsOur study highlights how relationship-building strategies can be leveraged in genomic multidisciplinary teams and can inform decisions about creating conditions that promote positive relationships and relational competence, ultimately leading to successful implementation of innovations into organisations/systems.
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.