Comparing interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in healthcare: A systematic review of the qualitative research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration have become important components of a well-functioning healthcare system, all the more so given limited financial resources, aging populations, and comorbid chronic diseases. The nursing role in working alongside other healthcare professionals is critical. By their leadership, nurses can create a culture that encourages values and role models that favour collaborative work within a team context. OBJECTIVES: To clarify the specific features of conceptual frameworks of interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in the healthcare field. This review, accordingly, offers insights into the key challenges facing policymakers, managers, healthcare professionals, and nurse leaders in planning, implementing, or evaluating interprofessional collaboration. DESIGN: This systematic review of qualitative research is based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for conducting synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane, JBI, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Sociological Abstract, PsycInfo, and ProQuest were searched, using terms such as professionals, organizations, collaboration, and frameworks. METHODS: Qualitative studies of all research design types describing a conceptual framework of interprofessional or interorganizational collaboration in the healthcare field were included. They had to be written in French or English and published in the ten years between 2004 and 2014. RESULTS: Sixteen qualitative articles were included in the synthesis. Several concepts were found to be common to interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration, such as communication, trust, respect, mutual acquaintanceship, power, patient-centredness, task characteristics, and environment. Other concepts are of particular importance either to interorganizational collaboration, such as the need for formalization and the need for professional role clarification, or to interprofessional collaboration, such as the role of individuals and team identity. Promoting interorganizational collaboration was found to face greater challenges, such as achieving a sense of belonging among professionals when differences exist between corporate cultures, geographical distance, the multitude of processes, and formal paths of communication. CONCLUSIONS: This review sets a direction to follow for implementing changes that meet the challenge of a changing healthcare system and the transition towards non-institutional care. It also shows that collaboration between nurses and healthcare professionals from different healthcare organizations is still poorly explored. This is a major limitation in the existing scientific literature, especially given the potential role that could be played by nurses in enhancing interorganizational collaboration.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,107 | 0,193 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,019 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».