↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Interprofessional teamwork innovations for primary health care practices and practitioners: evidence from a comparison of reform in three countries

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
Interprofessional teamwork innovations for primary health care practices and practitioners: evidence from a comparison of reform in three countries
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s97371
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark F Harris, Jenny Advocat, Benjamin F Crabtree, Jean-Frederic Levesque, William L Miller, Jane M Gunn, William Hogg, Cathie M Scott, Sabrina M Chase, Lisa Halma, Grant M Russell

Abstract

A key aim of reforms to primary health care (PHC) in many countries has been to enhance interprofessional teamwork. However, the impact of these changes on practitioners has not been well understood. To assess the impact of reform policies and interventions that have aimed to create or enhance teamwork on professional communication relationships, roles, and work satisfaction in PHC practices. Collaborative synthesis of 12 mixed methods studies. Primary care practices undergoing transformational change in three countries: Australia, Canada, and the USA, including three Canadian provinces (Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec). We conducted a synthesis and secondary analysis of 12 qualitative and quantitative studies conducted by the authors in order to understand the impacts and how they were influenced by local context. There was a diverse range of complex reforms seeking to foster interprofessional teamwork in the care of patients with chronic disease. The impact on communication and relationships between different professional groups, the roles of nursing and allied health services, and the expressed satisfaction of PHC providers with their work varied more within than between jurisdictions. These variations were associated with local contextual factors such as the size, power dynamics, leadership, and physical environment of the practice. Unintended consequences included deterioration of the work satisfaction of some team members and conflict between medical and nonmedical professional groups. The variation in impacts can be understood to have arisen from the complexity of interprofessional dynamics at the practice level. The same characteristic could have both positive and negative influence on different aspects (eg, larger practice may have less capacity for adoption but more capacity to support interprofessional practice). Thus, the impacts are not entirely predictable and need to be monitored, and so that interventions can be adapted at the local level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 7 4%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 43 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 49 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,273,871
of 24,451,685 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#75
of 920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,012
of 403,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,451,685 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 920 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,315 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.