ArticlePloS one2026
Interprofessional collegiality and workplace abuse among healthcare workers in eastern Uganda: A convergent mixed-methods study.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interprofessional collegiality reflects mutual respect, empathy and solidarity among different health professionals. Limited studies have explored interprofessional collegiality in Uganda. This study was conducted to determine the magnitude of interprofessional collegiality among healthcare workers in Eastern Uganda. We used a mixed-methods study design. The study was conducted among healthcare workers in two institutions in Eastern Uganda. We used the Practice Environment Scale to assess interprofessional collegiality among a sample size of 136 healthcare workers. The Likert Scale was used to assess the different dimensions of interprofessional collegiality. Ethical approval was obtained. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data, while thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. The majority of the participants were nurses/midwives (48%), allied health professionals (40%) and medical doctors (11%). The majority (65%) of participants strongly agreed and agreed that there was effective interprofessional collaboration in their workplace. Participants strongly agreed/agreed that there were good working relations (60%) and good teamwork (56%) between nurses/midwives and medical doctors. However, uncivil behaviours were common among healthcare workers, including psychological/emotional abuse (78%), physical abuse (4%), and sexual abuse (4%). In a qualitative study, uncivil behaviours occurred in the form of cold wars, name-calling, political interference, silent hatred, psychological stress, demotivation, absenteeism, and poor work relations. Poor collegial relations occurred from the individual (gender bias, perceived lack of capacity, poor supervision and leadership), interpersonal (lack of interpersonal respect, perceived lack of role clarity) and institutional factors (workload, poor working conditions, and maldistribution of incentives). Despite the high interprofessional collegiality reported between nurses/midwives and medical doctors, workplace abuse among healthcare workers was high in our setting. Policymakers could prioritise strategies that address individual, interpersonal and institutional factors that result in poor work relations among healthcare workers.
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.