↓ Skip to main content

Observation of interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care teams: An integrative literature review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
769 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Observation of interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care teams: An integrative literature review
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, March 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.008
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Interprofessional collaboration improves patient care, especially for those patients with complex and/or chronic conditions. Many studies examining collaborative practice in primary care settings have been undertaken, yet identification of essential elements of effective interprofessional collaboration in primary care settings remains obscure. To examine the nature of interprofessional collaboration (including interprofessional collaborative practice) and the key influences that lead to successful models of interprofessional practice in primary care teams, as reported in studies using direct observation methods. Integrative review using Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) five stage framework: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis and presentation. Data sources and review method: Primary research studies meeting the search criteria were accessed from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, King's Fund and Informit Health Collection databases, and by hand-searching reference lists. From 2005 to 2013, 105 studies closely examining elements of interprofessional collaboration were identified. Of these, 11 studies were identified which incorporated a range of 'real time' direct observation methods where the collaborative practice of health professionals was closely observed. Constant opportunity for effective, frequent, informal shared communication emerged as the overarching theme and most critical factor in achieving and sustaining effective interprofessional collaboration and interprofessional collaborative practice in this review. Multiple channels for repeated (often brief) informal shared communication were necessary for shared knowledge creation, development of shared goals, and shared clinical decision making. Favourable physical space configuration and 'having frequent brief time in common' were key facilitators. This review highlights the need to look critically at the body of research purported to investigate interprofessional collaboration in primary care settings and suggests the value of using direct observational methods to elucidate this. Direct observation of collaborative practice in everyday work settings holds promise as a method to better understand and articulate the complex phenomena of interprofessional collaboration, yet only a small number of studies to date have attempted to directly observe such practice. Despite methodological challenges, findings suggest that observation data may contribute in a unique way to the teamwork discourse, by identifying elements of interprofessional collaborative practice that are not so obvious to individuals when asked to self-report.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 769 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 761 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 100 13%
Student > Bachelor 94 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 8%
Student > Postgraduate 46 6%
Researcher 40 5%
Other 142 18%
Unknown 287 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 188 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 117 15%
Social Sciences 58 8%
Psychology 23 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 2%
Other 77 10%
Unknown 290 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,418,523
of 27,534,454 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#2,151
of 2,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,007
of 281,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#45
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,534,454 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,742 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 281,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.