Conceptualizing Interprofessional Digital Communication and Collaboration in Health Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective communication and collaboration among health professionals are essential prerequisites for patient-centered care. However, interprofessional teams require suitable structures and tools to efficiently use their professional competencies in the service of high-quality care appropriate to the patient's life situation. In this context, digital tools potentially enhance interprofessional communication and collaboration and lead to an organizationally, socially, and ecologically sustainable health care system. However, there is a lack of studies systematically assessing the critical factors for successfully implementing tools for digitally supported interprofessional communication and collaboration in the health care setting. Furthermore, an operationalization of this concept is missing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the proposed scoping review is to (1) identify factors influencing the development, implementation, and adoption processes of digital tools for interprofessional communication in the health care sector and (2) analyze and synthesize the (implicit) definition, dimensions, and concepts of digitally supported communication and collaboration among health care professionals in the health care setting. Studies focusing on digital communication and collaboration practices among health care professionals, including medical doctors and qualified medical assistants, in any health care setting will be included in this review. METHODS: To address these objectives, an in-depth analysis of heterogeneous studies is needed, which is best achieved through a scoping review. Within this proposed scoping review, which adheres to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, 5 databases (SCOPUS, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo) will be searched for studies assessing digital communication and collaboration among various health care professionals in different health care settings. Studies focusing on health care providers or patient interaction through digital tools and non-peer-reviewed studies will be excluded. RESULTS: Key characteristics of the studies included will be summarized through descriptive analysis, using diagrams and tables. We will synthesize and map the data and conduct a qualitative in-depth thematic analysis of definitions and dimensions of interprofessional digital communication and collaboration among health care and nursing professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this scoping review may help in establishing digitally supported collaborations between various stakeholders in the health care setting and successfully implementing new forms of interprofessional communication and collaboration. This could facilitate the transition to better coordinated care and encourage the development of digital frameworks. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45179.
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 | 0.118 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
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".