Cited by 17Interprofessional Education and CollaborationHealth Policy Implementation SciencePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Implementation of interprofessional team-based care: A cross-case analysis

Sibbald, Shannon L, Ziegler, Bianca R, Maskell, Rachelle, Schouten, Karen·2021·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

Two out of five Canadians have at least one chronic disease and four out of five are at risk of developing a chronic disease. Successful disease management relies on interprofessional team-based approaches, yet lack of purposeful cultivation and patient engagement has led to systematic inefficiencies. Two primary care teams in Southwestern Ontario implementing interprofessional chronic care programs for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were compared. A mixed-methods cross-case analysis was conducted including interviews, focus groups, observations and document analysis. Cases (n = 2) were chosen based on intrinsic and unique value. Participants (n = 46) were sampled using a combination of purposive and multi-level sampling. Data was analyzed using an iterative process; inductive coding was used to gain a sense of context followed by a deductive cross-case analysis to compare and contrast themes across sites. Kompier's five-step framework was used to assess factors contributing to successful implementation and to provide insight into interactions between teams, providers and patients. Both cases satisfied all five factors (systemic and gradual approach, identification of risk factors, theory-driven, participatory approach and sustained committed support). However, one case was more successful at fully implementing their model, attributed to a flexible implementation, plans to mitigate risks, theory use, a supportive team and continued buy-in from leadership. By better understanding key facilitators and barriers, we can support the implementation of chronic disease management programs, foster sustainability of high-performing interprofessional teams, and engage patients in the development and maintenance of team-based chronic disease management.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13561820.2020.1803228

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Interprofessional primary care teams that allocate more time for planning and discussion are better able to tailor implementation and adapt to a changing context, resolve issues, and improve collaboration.

    “Studies of factors affecting interprofessional primary care team function, including in rural areas, found that teams allocating more time for planning and discussion were better able to tailor the implementation and adapt to a changing context [49], resolve issues [48], and improve collaboration [26].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sibbald, S. L., Ziegler, B. R., Maskell, R., & Schouten, K.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Sibbald, Shannon L
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2020-08-22
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
654-661
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W3080455759
Cited by
17
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Interprofessional Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
chronic disease management, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, implementation barriers and facilitators, patient engagement, primary health care teams, interprofessional collaboration, program sustainability, leadership buy-in
MeSH terms
Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Ontario, Patient Care Team, Focus Groups, 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