Cited by 1,456Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationTeam Dynamics and Performance

The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks

D'Amour, Danielle, Ferrada-Videla, Marcela, San Martin Rodriguez, Leticia, Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique·2005·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

Interprofessional collaboration is a key factor in initiatives designed to increase the effectiveness of health services currently offered to the public. It is important that the concept of collaboration be well understood, because although the increasingly complex health problems faced by health professionals are creating more interdependencies among them, we still have limited knowledge of the complexity of interprofessional relationships. The goal of this literature review was to identify conceptual frameworks that could improve our understanding of this important aspect of health organizations. To this end, we have identified and taken into consideration: (A) the various definitions proposed in the literature and the various concepts associated with collaboration, and (B) the various theoretical frameworks of collaboration. Our results demonstrate that: (1) the concept of collaboration is commonly defined through five underlying concepts: sharing, partnership, power, interdependency and process; (2) the most complete models of collaboration seem to be those based on a strong theoretical background, either in organizational theory or in organizational sociology and on empirical data; (3) there is a significant amount of diversity in the way the various authors conceptualized collaboration and in the factors influencing collaboration; (4) these frameworks do not establish clear links between the elements in the models and the outputs; and (5) the literature does not provide a serious attempt to determine how patients could be integrated into the health care team, despite the fact that patients are recognized as the ultimate justification for providing collaborative care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13561820500082529

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
D'Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M.-D.
Affiliations
Université de Montréal (CA)
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2005-05
Volume
19
Issue
sup1
Pages
116-131
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W2167100077
Cited by
1,456
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 98 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 63
FWCI
38.60
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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
interprofessional collaboration, conceptual framework, partnership, interdependence, power, organizational theory, sociology of organizations, healthcare teams, patient integration, interprofessional relations
MeSH terms
Canada, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Models, Theoretical, Patient Care Team, Patient-Centered Care

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