CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 556Interprofessional Education and CollaborationTeam Dynamics and PerformanceInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review

Open access
Xyrichis, Andreas, Lowton, Karen·2008·International Journal of Nursing Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.01.015
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background The increase in prevalence of long-term conditions in Western societies, with the subsequent need for non-acute quality patient healthcare, has brought the issue of collaboration between health professionals to the fore. Within primary care, it has been suggested that multidisciplinary teamworking is essential to develop an integrated approach to promoting and maintaining the health of the population whilst improving service effectiveness. Although it is becoming widely accepted that no single discipline can provide complete care for patients with a long-term condition, in practice, interprofessional working is not always achieved. Objectives This review aimed to explore the factors that inhibit or facilitate interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care settings, in order to inform development of multidisciplinary working at the turn of the century. Design A comprehensive search of the literature was undertaken using a variety of approaches to identify appropriate literature for inclusion in the study. The selected articles used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Findings Following a thematic analysis of the literature, two main themes emerged that had an impact on interprofessional teamworking: team structure and team processes. Within these two themes, six categories were identified: team premises; team size and composition; organisational support; team meetings; clear goals and objectives; and audit. The complex nature of interprofessional teamworking in primary care meant that despite teamwork being an efficient and productive way of achieving goals and results, several barriers exist that hinder its potential from becoming fully exploited; implications and recommendations for practice are discussed. Conclusions These findings can inform development of current best practice, although further research needs to be conducted into multidisciplinary teamworking at both the team and organisation level, to ensure that enhancement and maintenance of teamwork leads to an improved quality of healthcare provision.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.01.015

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 52 references

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–554 of 554

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Xyrichis, A., & Lowton, K.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Xyrichis, Andreas
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-01
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
140-153
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.01.015
OpenAlex
W1995112310
Cited by
556
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 33
FWCI
32.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
multidisciplinary team, primary care, community-based care, barriers to teamwork, team structure, team processes, organizational support, chronic disease, team meetings, auditing, team composition
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Chronic Disease, Communication, Community Health Services, Conflict, Psychological, Cooperative Behavior, United Kingdom, Group Processes, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Leadership, Organizational Objectives, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Care Team, Primary Health Care, Research Design, Social Support, Socialization, Nursing Research, Information Storage and Retrieval, Professional Role, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review