Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42384621›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Nine keys for successful interprofessional collaboration Based on observing facilitators and barriers during different types of treatment meetings: A qualitative study.

Simon T de Gans, Renee C M A Raijmann, Meike F Huijbers, Natasja Looman, Marjolein van de Pol, Babette C van der Zwaard, Huiberdina L Koek, Marielle H Emmelot-Vonk, Carolina J P W Keijsers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Simon T de GansDepartment of Geriatrics Jeroen Bosch Hospital, GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7879-6593
Renee C M A RaijmannDepartment of Geriatrics Jeroen Bosch Hospital, GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Meike F HuijbersDepartment of Geriatrics Jeroen Bosch Hospital, GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Natasja LoomanDepartment of Primary and Community Care University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marjolein van de PolDepartment of Primary and Community Care University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0977-7954
Babette C van der ZwaardJeroen Bosch Academy Research, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Huiberdina L KoekDepartment of Geriatrics University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marielle H Emmelot-VonkDepartment of Geriatrics University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Carolina J P W KeijsersDepartment of Geriatrics Jeroen Bosch Hospital, GZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe increasing prevalence of multimorbidity requires effective collaboration between health professionals. Both interprofessional (IP) and multidisciplinary (MD) collaboration can be used for this purpose. IP collaboration refers to professionals working together toward a common patient-centred goal. In contrast, MD collaboration involves health professionals advocating for their own specialty, which may result in different disease-centred goals for the same patient. This study aims to evaluate and compare these two types of collaboration and develop recommendations for successful collaboration for patients with multimorbidity.

methodsThis qualitative study employed a rapid ethnographic non-participatory approach. We observed IP and MD treatment meetings using video and audio recordings to identify factors that might influence collaboration between health professionals. Data were analysed iteratively by multiple researchers using a thematic and conventional content analysis.

resultsThere were clear differences between the observed meetings. The IP meetings had a roundtable setting, designated chair, discussions around a common patient-centred goal, active participants, and a relaxed atmosphere that facilitated interprofessional learning. Conversely, the MD meetings had a theatre design, disease-centred discussion, more passive participants, and a less relaxed atmosphere with fewer opportunities for learning. Five participants attended both settings. These participants were more actively engaged and contributed more to interprofessional learning in the IP meetings than in the MD meetings.

conclusionThis study showed multiple factors that may influence collaboration and participants' behaviour, particularly regarding active participation, learning, and patient-centred care. These factors were translated into nine keys for optimizing collaboration, which could support improvement in collaborative practice.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterprofessional RelationsHealth PersonnelHumansPatient Care TeamPatient-Centered CareQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID42384621
PMCPMC13322501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.