Views on Interprofessional Collaboration in a Dutch Sexual Assault Center: A Qualitative Study Among Workers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Jasmijn Mulder,1 Theodora Alberta Maria Teunissen,1 Veranie Maria Johanna Peters,1 Marie Louise Moors,2 Antoinette Leonarda Maria Lagro-Janssen1 1Department of Primary and Community Care, Gender and Women’s Health, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 2Emergency Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Jasmijn Mulder, Radboudumc, Afdeling Eerstelijnsgeneeskunde, Huispost 121, t.a.v. Jasmijn Mulder, Postbus 9101, Nijmegen, 6500HB, the Netherlands, Email Jasmijn.mulder@radboudumc.nlPurpose: As the response to sexual assault victims proved to be shattered and substandard, sexual assault centers were set up to improve care by providing the victims with medical, psychosocial and legal care. The Dutch Centers for Sexual Assault were launched in 2012. We wished to examine the challenges in interprofessional collaboration experienced in a long-running Dutch Sexual Assault Center.Methods: In this qualitative study, data was collected via semi-structured explorative interviews which were analyzed using thematic analysis in an iterative process. The semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen professionals from medical, psychosocial and legal disciplines. An interview guide was developed based on expert opinion and the Bronstein Index of Interprofessional Collaboration. Qualitative analyses were done using the method of thematic analysis in ATLAS.ti and were reported according to the COREQ criteria. The themes of the experienced challenges in interprofessional collaboration were further clarified using quotations.Results: Participants mentioned three themes that challenged interprofessional collaboration: 1. discrepancies in professional involvement, 2. conflicting goals and 3. a lack of connection. Discrepancies in motivation and affinity to work with victims of sexual violence between professionals proved to be the most pivotal challenge to collaboration, leading to disturbing differences in professional involvement. A low caseload and time restraints complicated gaining expertise, affinity and motivation. Conflicting goals and confidentiality issues arose between the medical and legal disciplines due to their contrasting aims of caring for victims versus facilitating prosecution. Some professionals felt a lack of connection, particularly due to missing face-to-face personal contact, which hindered the sharing of complex or burdensome cases and gaining insight into the other discipline’s competences.Conclusion: Building collective ownership and equal professional involvement are crucial for interprofessional collaboration. Professional involvement should be increased by training courses to clarify conflicting goals and to improve reciprocal personal contact between professionals. Training courses should be facilitated with organizational financial support.Keywords: interprofessional collaboration, sexual assault center, challenges, sexual assault, sexual violence, qualitative methods
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».