Interprofessional Collaboration on Mental Health: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: The increasing prevalence rate of mental illness due to demographic changes became the burden of disease in primary health care. Effective interprofessional collaboration strategies are required to improve professional welfare and quality of care. Interdisciplinary teamwork plays an important role in the treatment of chronic care, including mental illness. This scoping review aimed to investigate the benefit and barrier of interprofessional collaboration approach to mental health care. Subjects and Method: A scoping review method was conducted in eight stages including (1) Identification of study problems; (2) Determining priority problem and study question; (3) Determining framework; (4) Literature searching; (5) Article selection; (6) Critical appraisal; (7) Data extraction; and (8) Mapping. The search included PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Willey Online library databases. The inclusion criteria were English-language, full-text, and free access articles published between 2010 and 2020. The data were reported by the PRISMA flow chart. Results: A total of 316 articles obtained from the search databases, in which 263 articles unmet the inclusion criteria and 53 duplicates were excluded. Based on the selected seven articles, one article from a developed country (Malaysia), and six articles from developing countries (Australia, Canada, Belgium, Norway) with quantitative (cross-sectional, surveillance) and qualitative study designs. The reviewed findings were benefit and barrier of interprofessional collaboration on mental health. Benefits included improve quality of care, increase job satisfaction, improve patient health status, increase staff satisfaction, increase performance motivation among employees, as well as shorter duration of treatment and lower cost. Barriers included hierarchy culture, lack of resources, lack of time, poor communication, and inadequate training. Conclusion: Interprofessional teamwork and collaboration have been considered an essential solution for effective mental health care. Keywords: interprofessional collaboration, benefit, barrier, mental health Correspondence: Arista Kusuma Wardani. Universitas ‘Aisyiyah Yogyakarta. Jl. Siliwangi (Ring Road Barat) No. 63 Mlangi, Nogotirto, Gamping, Sleman, Yogyakarta, 55292. Email: wardanikusuma1313@gmail.com. Mobile: +6281805204773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26911/the7thicph.04.26
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".