The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interprofessional Collaboration in Ontario’s Family Health Teams: A Review of the Literature
Open accessAbstract
Background: In Ontario, 200 interprofessional Family Health Teams (FHTs) have been established since 2005 to improve primary healthcare access, patient outcomes, and costs. High levels of interprofessional collaboration are important for team success; however, effective team functioning is difficult to achieve. FHTs are in their infancy, and little is known about the determinants that have influenced the quality of team collaboration or the outcomes that FHTs have achieved. The objective of this article is to examine current knowledge regarding FHT team functioning.Methods and Findings: A search of the literature resulted in eleven articles for final analysis, which were primarily qualitative in nature. A narrative synthesis of study findings was completed. A number of common challenges to interprofessional collaboration were identified. Nevertheless, patients and providers described improved healthcare access, greater satisfaction, and enhanced quality of healthcare using a FHT approach. Collaboration was fostered by effective leadership, communication, outcome evaluation, and training for both professionals and patients alike.Conclusions: Ontario FHTs have generated improvements in healthcare access and outcomes. Collaborative team functioning, while present, has not reached its full potential. Supportive public policy, education for patients and providers, and evaluation research is needed to advance FHT functioning.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Yet, recent work suggests that teams vary in the extent and effectiveness of collaboration [9, 20].”
From ‘Gearing Up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework (2016) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“The broad categories of factors and their relative importance within the gears model as portrayed here are consistent with reviews that primarily identified qualitative studies that examine factors that influence IPCT collaboration [4, 20, 55, 56].”
From ‘Gearing Up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework (2016) · cites this paper as [20]
Citations
Cites
Mulvale, G., Danner, U., & Pasic, D. (2008) · Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2008-0018 · Cited by 35 · cited 10×
“Recruitment challenges were multifaceted, including geographic barriers with low representation of certain professional groups, as well as inadequate remuneration of select IHP groups with low salary benchmarks compared to those in the hospital sector [15,20,21].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mulvale, G., Embrett, M., & Razavi, S. D. (2016) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0492-1 · Cited by 253
“tive studies that examine factors that influence IPCT collaboration [4, 20, 55, 56].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Gocan, S., Laplante, M. A., & Woodend, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education
- Publisher
- CISP Journal Services
- Published
- 2014-01-21
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1916-7342 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1541940008
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 10.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- interprofessional collaboration, family health teams, primary care, team functioning, health care access, patient satisfaction, quality of care, leadership, communication, patient education, Ontario
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