ArticlePloS one2026
Nine keys for successful interprofessional collaboration Based on observing facilitators and barriers during different types of treatment meetings: A qualitative 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
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
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.