ArticleBMC primary care2026
Who are the healthcare professionals involved in interprofessional team meetings in French multidisciplinary primary care centres? A quantitative analysis of eight centres.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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.
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
backgroundInterprofessional collaboration is crucial for providing high-quality care to patients with complex conditions in primary care. In France, multidisciplinary primary care centres (MPCC) receive funding if they organise at least 6 interprofessional team meetings (ITM) per year to discuss complex patient situations and collectively define care strategies. It remains unclear how ITM have been implemented in France. This study analyses healthcare professionals' involvement in ITMs within MPCCs.
methodA multicenter retrospective quantitative study in 8 French MPCCs based on the analysis of ITM reports for the period from 2018 to 2019 was conducted.
results1733 patients'situations (n = 1733 cases) discussed during ITMs were analysed. The 8 MPCCs were heterogeneous in terms of geographical location, creation date, and size (3 MPCCs with > 20,000 patients followed by more than 60 professionals and 3 MPCCs with < 20 professionals). On average, five healthcare professionals attended each ITM, with huge variations among MPCCs. The nurse-general practitioner (GP) pair was central. At least one GP was present at 89% (n = 1469) and nurses at 38.15% (n = 630) of ITMs. Participation of other professionals was less frequent and varied according to the MPCC. Physiotherapists were present at 7.8% of ITMs, and other healthcare professionals were present at < 6% of ITMs, including pharmacists (3% of ITMs). In some cases, healthcare professionals external to MPCC, particularly those related to mental health, were also involved in ITMs.
conclusionsDepending on the MPCC, the professionals involved in ITM vary widely, with the nurse-GP pair at the centre. The relative absence of certain professionals needs to be analysed in order to encourage interprofessional working.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.