5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Scoping review to identify strategies and interventions improving interprofessional collaboration and integration in primary care

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To identify strategies and interventions used to improve interprofessional collaboration and integration (IPCI) in primary care.

          Design

          Scoping review

          Data sources

          Specific Medical Subject Headings terms were used, and a search strategy was developed for PubMed and afterwards adapted to Medline, Eric and Web of Science.

          Study selection

          In the first stage of the selection, two researchers screened the article abstracts to select eligible papers. When decisions conflicted, three other researchers joined the decision-making process. The same strategy was used with full-text screening. Articles were included if they: (1) were in English, (2) described an intervention to improve IPCI in primary care involving at least two different healthcare disciplines, (3) originated from a high-income country, (4) were peer-reviewed and (5) were published between 2001 and 2020.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          From each paper, eligible data were extracted, and the selected papers were analysed inductively. Studying the main focus of the papers, researchers searched for common patterns in answering the research question and exposing research gaps. The identified themes were discussed and adjusted until a consensus was reached among all authors.

          Results

          The literature search yielded a total of 1816 papers. After removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and performing full-text readings, 34 papers were incorporated in this scoping review. The identified strategies and interventions were inductively categorised under five main themes: (1) Acceptance and team readiness towards collaboration, (2) acting as a team and not as an individual; (3) communication strategies and shared decision making, (4) coordination in primary care and (5) integration of caregivers and their skills and competences.

          Conclusions

          We identified a mix of strategies and interventions that can function as ‘building blocks’, for the development of a generic intervention to improve collaboration in different types of primary care settings and organisations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                27 October 2022
                : 12
                : 10
                : e062111
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium
                [2 ]departmentCentre of Research and Innovations in Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium
                [3 ]departmentLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Faculty of pharmaceutic sciences , University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium
                [4 ]departmentFamily Medicine and Population Health (FAMPOP), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium
                [5 ]White-Yellow Cross of Flanders , Brussels, Belgium
                [6 ]departmentCenter for family medicine, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , Ghent University , Ghent, Belgium
                [7 ]departmentEnd-of-Life Care Research Group , Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Ghent University , Ghent, Belgium
                [8 ]departmentCentre for research and innovation in care (CRIC), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , University of Antwerp , Antwerp, Belgium
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Muhammed Mustafa Sirimsi; muhammedmustafa.sirimsi@ 123456uantwerpen.be
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-3878
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5566-6868
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2273-0250
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-062111
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062111
                9621161
                36302577
                70344187-8ff1-4496-9836-0edda480369c
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 February 2022
                : 05 October 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006282, Koning Boudewijnstichting;
                Award ID: 2019-J5170820-211588
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                1704
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                primary care,organisation of health services,public health,protocols & guidelines,quality in health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article