Limits...
The common characteristics and outcomes of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary health care: a systematic literature review.

Schepman S, Hansen J, de Putter ID, Batenburg RS, de Bakker DH - Int J Integr Care (2015)

Bottom Line: Approximately half of the 139 outcomes in these studies is non-significant.By contrast, a higher proportion of significant results were found in studies that report on clinical outcomes.This review shows a large diversity in the types of collaboration in primary care; and also thus a large proportion of outcomes do not seem to be positively affected by collaboration.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Research on collaboration in primary care focuses on specific diseases or types of collaboration. We investigate the effects of such collaboration by bringing together the results of scientific studies.

Theory and methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane and EMBASE. The review was restricted to publications that test outcomes of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care in high-income countries. A conceptual model is used to structure the analysis.

Results: Fifty-one studies comply with the selection criteria about collaboration in primary care. Approximately half of the 139 outcomes in these studies is non-significant. Studies among older patients, in particular, report non-significant outcomes (p < .05). By contrast, a higher proportion of significant results were found in studies that report on clinical outcomes.

Conclusions and discussion: This review shows a large diversity in the types of collaboration in primary care; and also thus a large proportion of outcomes do not seem to be positively affected by collaboration. Both the characteristics of the structure of the collaboration and the collaboration processes themselves affect the outcomes. More research is necessary to understand the mechanism behind the success of collaboration, especially on the exact nature of collaboration and the context in which collaboration takes place.

No MeSH data available.


The screening process.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4491327&req=5

fg0001: The screening process.

Mentions: Figure 1 shows the results of the screening process. The search initially yielded 3535 unique references over the four databases. These were first assessed on the title and next on the abstract. If neither covered multidisciplinary collaboration, the article was excluded. The first 10% of the abstracts were reviewed by two reviewers (SMS and JH). Subsequently, the researchers resolved any disagreements by discussion and made the inclusion criteria more explicit. The remaining abstracts were reviewed by either one or the other. Next, the full text of 155 publications selected were reviewed independently by five reviewers (SMS, RB, DB, IP and JH). SMS read all publications and RB, DB, IP and JH read a part of all references. In this way, every publication was read by two reviewers. The inter-rater reliability kappa of the researchers giving exactly the same judgement is 0.73 (p < 0.05) which means the agreement is substantial. The few disagreements were resolved by discussion. In two cases, the full text of the publications was read by a third reviewer in order to resolve the disagreements that could not be solved by discussion.


The common characteristics and outcomes of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary health care: a systematic literature review.

Schepman S, Hansen J, de Putter ID, Batenburg RS, de Bakker DH - Int J Integr Care (2015)

The screening process.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4491327&req=5

fg0001: The screening process.
Mentions: Figure 1 shows the results of the screening process. The search initially yielded 3535 unique references over the four databases. These were first assessed on the title and next on the abstract. If neither covered multidisciplinary collaboration, the article was excluded. The first 10% of the abstracts were reviewed by two reviewers (SMS and JH). Subsequently, the researchers resolved any disagreements by discussion and made the inclusion criteria more explicit. The remaining abstracts were reviewed by either one or the other. Next, the full text of 155 publications selected were reviewed independently by five reviewers (SMS, RB, DB, IP and JH). SMS read all publications and RB, DB, IP and JH read a part of all references. In this way, every publication was read by two reviewers. The inter-rater reliability kappa of the researchers giving exactly the same judgement is 0.73 (p < 0.05) which means the agreement is substantial. The few disagreements were resolved by discussion. In two cases, the full text of the publications was read by a third reviewer in order to resolve the disagreements that could not be solved by discussion.

Bottom Line: Approximately half of the 139 outcomes in these studies is non-significant.By contrast, a higher proportion of significant results were found in studies that report on clinical outcomes.This review shows a large diversity in the types of collaboration in primary care; and also thus a large proportion of outcomes do not seem to be positively affected by collaboration.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Research on collaboration in primary care focuses on specific diseases or types of collaboration. We investigate the effects of such collaboration by bringing together the results of scientific studies.

Theory and methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane and EMBASE. The review was restricted to publications that test outcomes of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care in high-income countries. A conceptual model is used to structure the analysis.

Results: Fifty-one studies comply with the selection criteria about collaboration in primary care. Approximately half of the 139 outcomes in these studies is non-significant. Studies among older patients, in particular, report non-significant outcomes (p < .05). By contrast, a higher proportion of significant results were found in studies that report on clinical outcomes.

Conclusions and discussion: This review shows a large diversity in the types of collaboration in primary care; and also thus a large proportion of outcomes do not seem to be positively affected by collaboration. Both the characteristics of the structure of the collaboration and the collaboration processes themselves affect the outcomes. More research is necessary to understand the mechanism behind the success of collaboration, especially on the exact nature of collaboration and the context in which collaboration takes place.

No MeSH data available.