Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement

Open access
Choi, Bernard C. K., Pak, Anita W. P.·2007·Clinical and Investigative Medicine

Abstract

Background/Purpose: Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams are increasingly encouraged in health research, services, education and policy. This paper is the second in a series. The first discussed the definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness of multiple disciplinary teamwork. This paper continues to examine the promotors, barriers, and ways to enhance such teamwork. Methods: The paper is a literature review based on Google and MEDLINE (1982-2007) searches. “Multidisciplinarity”, “interdisciplinarity”, “transdisciplinarity” and “definition” were used as keywords to identify the pertinent literature. Results: The promotors of teamwork success include: good selection of team members, good team leaders, maturity and flexibility of team members, personal commitment, physical proximity of team members, the Internet and email as a supporting platform, incentives, institutional support and changes in the workplace, a common goal and shared vision, clarity and rotation of roles, communication, and constructive comments among team members. The barriers, in general, reflect the situation in which the promotors are lacking. They include: poor selection of the disciplines and team members, poor process of team functioning, lack of proper measures to evaluate success of interdisciplinary work, lack of guidelines for multiple authorship in research publications, language problems, insufficient time or funding for the project, institutional constraints, discipline conflicts, team conflicts, lack of communication between disciplines, and unequal power among disciplines. Conclusion: Not every health project needs to involve multiple disciplines. Several questions can help in deciding whether a multiple disciplinary approach is required. If multiple disciplinarity is called for, eight strategies to enhance multiple disciplinary teamwork are proposed. They can be summarised in the acronym TEAMWORK - Team, Enthusiasm, Accessibility, Motivation, Workplace, Objectives, Role, Kinship.

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 · 10.25011/cim.v30i6.2950

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 377

Metadata

Authors
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P.
Venue
Clinical and Investigative Medicine
Published
2007-12-01
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
E224-E232
ISSN
  • 0147-958X (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2353
OpenAlex
W2143630684
Cited by
377
References
20
FWCI
17.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.25011/cim.v30i6.2950
The paper
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2007). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement. Clinical and Investigative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.25011/cim.v30i6.2950

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.