ArticleBMC health services research2026
Advancing team-based care in private practices: a case study of a public-private hybrid model.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
backgroundDespite widespread enthusiasm for team-based care models, adoption remains a challenge across Canadian jurisdictions, especially in private practices. The transformation of primary care demands innovative approaches that reconcile physician autonomy with the systemic need for collaborative, team-based care. This article examines an innovative public-private hybrid model in which publicly funded non-physician team members are integrated into a private clinic. It offers insights into how such reconciliation might be achieved.
methodsThis study draws on a case study of a pilot project involving a primary care private practice transitioning to team-based care in Canada. Three qualitative data collection methods were employed: document analysis, semi-structured interviews (n = 27), and non-participatory observations (six days). A manual thematic analysis of the data was conducted, results were triangulated, and the coding system was refined through research team discussions.
resultsFindings highlight both the benefits and challenges of hybrid models as a pathway for primary care reform. Benefits include enabling transition to team-based care by addressing resource constraints, preserving core aspects of family physicians' professional autonomy, and incorporating patient-centered thinking within organizations typically oriented toward efficiency and sustainability. Challenges include physician distrust of public authorities, incompatibility with the fee-for-service payment model, and structural and operational barriers.
conclusionsThis research offers insights into how incremental reforms can leverage existing private infrastructure while advancing collaborative care. These findings may inform strategies in jurisdictions where primary care remains heavily reliant on independent practitioners. Future research should examine the conditions under which such models can be sustained and scaled, and how they reshape professional roles, governance, and accountability in primary care.
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.