Conflict on interprofessional primary health care teams – can it be resolved?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, primary health care teams (PHCTs) depend on the contributions of multiple professionals. However, conflict is inevitable on teams. This article examines PHCTs members' experiences with conflict and responses to conflict. This phenomenological study was conducted using in-depth interviews with 121 participants from 16 PHCTs (10 urban and 6 rural) including a wide range of health care professionals. An iterative analysis process was used to examine the verbatim transcripts. The analysis revealed three main themes: sources of team conflict; barriers to conflict resolution; and strategies for conflict resolution. Sources of team conflict included: role boundary issues; scope of practice; and accountability. Barriers to conflict resolution were: lack of time and workload; people in less powerful positions; lack of recognition or motivation to address conflict; and avoiding confrontation for fear of causing emotional discomfort. Team strategies for conflict resolution included interventions by team leaders and the development of conflict management protocols. Individual strategies included: open and direct communication; a willingness to find solutions; showing respect; and humility. Conflict is inherent in teamwork. However, understanding the potential barriers to conflict resolution can assist PHCTs in developing strategies to resolve conflict in a timely fashion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it