Exploring Professional Culture in the Context of Family Health Team Interprofessional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND While family health teams (FHTs) seek to deliver collaborative patient-centered care, the barriers that can arise due to a practitioners professional culture pose a challenge to attaining interprofessional collaboration. e e ect of professional culture in relation to FHT collaboration has not yet been examined, and a heightened awareness and appreciation of how this concept in uences team dynamics holds promise to improve interprofessional collabora-tion on these and other evolving health care teams.METHODS Qualitative secondary data analysis was conducted on data collected from in-depth semi-structured fo-cus groups (n=5). A non-random convenience sample consisted of 42 participants from medicine, nursing, and allied health professions at the Family Health Centre and Diabetes Education Centre in a large academic teaching hospital in urban Canada. Discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed for themes using a modi ed directed content analysis approach.FINDINGS ree main themes emerged: professional culture; FHT culture; and resources. Professional culture cannot be neatly separated from ones personal, social or professional history, which ties in with opinions of accountability, power and hierarchy. Structure and processes of the FHT that encourage collaborative processes; clearly articulated scopes of practice, skills, authority; clari cations of roles and responsibilities; and opportunities to develop team rela-tionships are necessary to di use the tension that exists between professional and FHT cultures.CONCLUSIONS FHTs are multidisciplinary groups co-located but with a lack of meaningful structures and processes to support collaboration. ere is heavy physician dominance and physicians seem to adhere to old hierarchical struc -tures and beliefs, consistent with their professional culture. In general, the health care providers need to build collabora -tive competencies (e.g. role clarity, e ective communication) in order to move a group of interdisciplinary health care providers toward being a highly performing interprofessional team.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".