Interprofessional collaboration: development of a tool to enhance knowledge translation
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a complex and multidimensional process in which different professionals work together to positively impact health care. In order to enhance the knowledge translation and improve rehabilitation practitioners' knowledge and skills toward IPC, it is essential to develop a comprehensive tool that illustrates how IPC should be operationalized in clinical settings. Thus, this study aims at developing, validating and assessing the usefulness of a comprehensive framework illustrating how the interactional factors should be operationalized in clinical settings to promote good collaboration. METHODS: This article presents a mixed-method approach used to involve rehabilitation stakeholders (n = 20) in the development and validation of an IPC framework according to a systematic seven-phase procedure. RESULTS: The final framework shows five types of practices according to four components: the situation of the client and family, the intention underlying the collaboration, the interaction between practitioners, and the combining of disciplinary knowledge. CONCLUSION: The framework integrates the current scientific knowledge and clinical experience regarding the conceptualization of IPC. It is considered as a relevant and useful KT tool to enhance IPC knowledge for various stakeholders, especially in the rehabilitation field. This comprehensive and contextualized framework could be used in undergraduate and continuing education initiatives. Implications for Rehabilitation The framework developed integrates the current scientific knowledge and clinical experience regarding the conceptualization of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) that is relevant to the rehabilitation field. It could be used in undergraduate and continuing education initiatives to help learners understand the multidimensional and dynamic nature of IPC. It could be useful to support practitioners and managers from the rehabilitation field in their efforts to optimize collaborative practice within their organization.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Patients with multiple chronic conditions may require collaboration from many more health professionals than patients with less complex needs.
“In addition, patients with multiple chronic conditions [41] such as mental health problems [12] or rehabilitation patients [13] may require collaboration from many more health professionals than patients with less complex needs.”
From ‘Gearing Up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework (2016) · cites this paper as [13]
Cites
Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure
Jabareen, Y. (2009) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690900800406 · Cited by 1,559 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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 · see citing works
“such as mental health problems [12] or rehabilitation patients [13] may require collaboration from many more”
BackgroundInterprofessional collaboration in palliative dementia care through the eyes of informal caregivers
Khemai, C., Meijers, J. M., Mujezinovic, I., Bolt, S. R., Pieters, S., Moser, A., Schols, J. M. G. A., & Janssen, D. J. A. (2022) · Dementia · doi:10.1177/14713012221098259 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Costa Marion, A. D., Pereira, L. C., & Lucia Moura Pinho, D. (2025) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2022.2147153 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Careau, E., Brière, N., Houle, N., Dumont, S., Vincent, C., & Swaine, B.
- Affiliations
- Université Laval (CA)
- Centre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Vieille-Capitale (CA)
- Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Careau, Emmanuelle
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-05-14
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 372-378
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2092339611
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 4.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Disability and Rehabilitation (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
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- interprofessional collaboration, knowledge translation, rehabilitation professionals, interactional factors, interdisciplinary knowledge integration, rehabilitation education, continuing professional development, collaborative practice
- MeSH terms
- Cooperative Behavior, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Translational Research, Biomedical
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