Cited by 78Interprofessional Education and CollaborationTeam Dynamics and PerformancePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

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 access
Gocan, Sophia, Laplante, Mary Anne, Woodend, Kirsten·2014·Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.22230/jripe.2014v3n3a131

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 78

Metadata

Authors
Gocan, S., Laplante, M. A., & Woodend, K.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education
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
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