Family physicians’ perspectives on interprofessional teamwork: Findings from a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe family physicians' perspectives of their role in the primary care team and factors that facilitate and hinder teamwork. A qualitative study was conducted employing individual interviews with 19 academic/community-based family physicians who were part of interprofessional primary care teams in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Professional responsibilities and roles of physicians within the team and the facilitators and barriers to teamwork were investigated. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed for emerging themes. The study findings revealed that family physicians consistently perceived themselves as having the leadership role on in the primary care team. Facilitators of teamwork included: communication; trust and respect; defined roles/responsibilities of team members; co-location; task shifting to other health professionals; and appropriate payment mechanisms. Barriers to teamwork included: undefined roles/responsibilities; lack of space; frequent staff turnover; network boundaries; and a culture of power and control. The findings suggest that moving family physicians toward more integrative and interdependent functioning within the primary care team will require overcoming the culture of traditional professional roles, addressing facilitators and barriers to teamwork, and providing training in teamwork.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".