Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interprofessionality in health and social care: the Achilles' heel of partnership?

Hudson, Bob·2002·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

Partnership working is now a central plank of public policy in the UK, especially in the field of health and social care. However, much of the policy thrust has been at the level of interorganisational working rather than at the level of interprofessional partnerships. The empirical and theoretical literature is largely sceptical about the feasibility of effective joint working between separate but related professionals--the 'pessimistic tradition'. Based upon an empirical study of general practitioners, community nurses and social workers in northern England, this article challenges such a tradition and proposes an 'optimistic hypothesis' for further investigation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13561820220104122

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 302

Metadata

Authors
Hudson, B.
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2002-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
7-17
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W2169479834
Cited by
302
References
0
FWCI
35.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interprofessionality in health and social care: the Achilles' heel of partnership? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13561820220104122
The paper
Hudson, B. (2002). Interprofessionality in health and social care: the Achilles' heel of partnership? Journal of Interprofessional Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820220104122

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.