Enablers and barriers to the development of interprofessional collaboration between physicians and osteopaths: A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteopathy is a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is growing in popularity. Increasing numbers of parents are seeking pediatric osteopathic care in addition to conventional medical care. Information about the development of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between these practitioners is scarce. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study aimed to explore enablers of and barriers to the development of IPC between physicians and osteopaths involved with pediatric patients in primary care in Quebec, Canada. Postal questionnaires about collaborative practices were first sent to all physicians and osteopaths working with pediatric patients in Quebec. Semi-structured individual interviews were then conducted with a subset of 10 physicians and 11 osteopaths. A total of 274 physicians (14%) and 297 osteopaths (42%) completed the survey. Forty-five percent (n = 122) of physicians reported that they referred at least one pediatric patient per month to an osteopath. Thirty-six percent (n = 96) of physicians and 41% (n = 122) of osteopaths indicated having professional relationships. Personal consultation, professional relationship, perceived utility of osteopathy and community practice were positively associated with osteopathic referrals. According to participants, the strongest enabler of the development of collaboration was positive clinical results reported by parents. Additional enablers included the osteopath having previous health professionals training such as physiotherapist, pediatric experience, mutual respect for professional boundaries and complementarity, perceived safety of osteopathy, and parents’ requests for collaboration. Barriers were the absence of a common language, the organizational and legal context, uncertainty regarding one another’s roles, lack of interprofessional interactions, and limited scientific evidence. These results related to enablers of and barriers to collaboration between physicians and osteopaths and the illustration of their dynamic interaction could be used to guide efforts to promote productive collaboration and safe patient-oriented care.
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 | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".