ArticleThe European journal of general practice2026
Interprofessional collaboration in primary care in Germany - collective irresponsibility, one-way-street or colourful bouquet of services? A qualitative study with stakeholders from various professions.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) in outpatient care can improve patient outcomes and satisfaction, health prevention and economics. German primary care (PC) is challenged by an ongoing demand for health care professionals to extend services. PC in Germany is regularly provided by general practitioners and medical assistants. Models on how to establish interprofessional primary care (IPPC) are scarce.
objectivesAim of the study was to explore stakeholders' suggestions on IPC in German PC to support development of an IPPC model.
methodsProfessionals from various nation-wide institutions and associations with professional backgrounds in general practice, medical assistance, nursing, physician assistance, social work and specialist medicine as well as from health insurance and law, were recruited. Semi-structured interviews were performed. Deductively identified main categories included strategies for implementing IPC on system-level, organisational-level, team-level and individual-level and were coded in sub-categories inductively.
resultsOn system-level professionals predominantly named accountability, funding and remuneration. On organisational level documentation systems, the necessity of coordination and the availability of qualified personnel were discussed. On team-level interviewees focussed on the necessity of a mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities, clear and collaborative distribution of tasks and team leadership as well as patient integration and health literacy support. On individual-level the acceptance of new roles and professions was pointed out.
conclusionTo establish IPPC in Germany, remuneration and accountability need to be addressed. Models of IPPC need to integrate suggestions explored, a step-by-step approach for general practitioners to enable change-management and longitudinal support to promote adapted leadership and sustainable implementation.
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.