↓ Skip to main content

What systemic factors contribute to collaboration between primary care and public health sectors? An interpretive descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
What systemic factors contribute to collaboration between primary care and public health sectors? An interpretive descriptive study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2730-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabrina T. Wong, Marjorie MacDonald, Ruth Martin-Misener, Donna Meagher-Stewart, Linda O’Mara, Ruta K. Valaitis

Abstract

Purposefully building stronger collaborations between primary care (PC) and public health (PH) is one approach to strengthening primary health care. The purpose of this paper is to report: 1) what systemic factors influence collaborations between PC and PH; and 2) how systemic factors interact and could influence collaboration. This interpretive descriptive study used purposive and snowball sampling to recruit and conduct interviews with PC and PH key informants in British Columbia (n = 20), Ontario (n = 19), and Nova Scotia (n = 21), Canada. Other participants (n = 14) were knowledgeable about collaborations and were located in various Canadian provinces or working at a national level. Data were organized into codes and thematic analysis was completed using NVivo. The frequency of "sources" (individual transcripts), "references" (quotes), and matrix queries were used to identify potential relationships between factors. We conducted a total of 70 in-depth interviews with 74 participants working in either PC (n = 33) or PH (n = 32), both PC and PH (n = 7), or neither sector (n = 2). Participant roles included direct service providers (n = 17), senior program managers (n = 14), executive officers (n = 11), and middle managers (n = 10). Seven systemic factors for collaboration were identified: 1) health service structures that promote collaboration; 2) funding models and financial incentives supporting collaboration; 3) governmental and regulatory policies and mandates for collaboration; 4) power relations; 5) harmonized information and communication infrastructure; 6) targeted professional education; and 7) formal systems leaders as collaborative champions. Most themes were discussed with equal frequency between PC and PH. An assessment of the system level context (i.e., provincial and regional organization and funding of PC and PH, history of government in successful implementation of health care reform, etc) along with these seven system level factors could assist other jurisdictions in moving towards increased PC and PH collaboration. There was some variation in the importance of the themes across provinces. British Columbia participants more frequently discussed system structures that could promote collaboration, power relations, harmonized information and communication structures, formal systems leaders as collaboration champions and targeted professional education. Ontario participants most frequently discussed governmental and regulatory policies and mandates for collaboration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Social Sciences 10 12%
Psychology 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 27 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,196,609
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,456
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,080
of 437,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#27
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 437,935 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.