ArticleFamily practice2026
Co-creation and interprofessional collaborative practice for the local management of osteoporosis: a qualitative study in primary healthcare.
Article in Family 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) benefits patients with complex conditions such as osteoporosis that require care from multiple professions. ICP is not consistently applied in osteoporosis management in primary healthcare today.
objectivesTo explore how an ICP intervention promoting co-creation of osteoporosis management was conducted and how it was experienced by nurses and physicians in primary healthcare.
methodsThe intervention part was guided by participatory health research approach. In total, 12 nurses and physicians from five primary healthcare centres participated in three workshops aimed at supporting co-creation of local osteoporosis management. The evaluation part consisted of group and individual interviews and surveys capturing self-reported experiences. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis with inductive approach.
resultsParticipants reviewed local osteoporosis management and co-created work procedures tailored to their settings. The analysis generated three categories with seven subcategories. The categories were innovative learning processes, perceived effects, and factors influencing changes in work procedures. Innovative learning processes described shared learning, reflection, and adaptation in developing work procedures. Perceived effects included expected benefits for patients, changes in professional roles, and increased interprofessional collaboration. Participants described a strengthened role for nurses in osteoporosis management. Factors influencing changes in work procedures included organizational, professional, and resource-related conditions. The survey findings supported those from the interviews.
conclusionA participatory approach facilitated collaborative revision of osteoporosis management by leveraging local knowledge and promoting interprofessional learning. Participatory health research appears useful for developing ICP in managing complex conditions such as osteoporosis in primary healthcare.
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.