↓ Skip to main content

In-service training programme for health and social care workers in the Philippines to strengthen interprofessional collaboration in caring for older adults: a mixed-methods study

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2022
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In-service training programme for health and social care workers in the Philippines to strengthen interprofessional collaboration in caring for older adults: a mixed-methods study
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12961-022-00914-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keiko Nakamura, Kathryn Lizbeth L. Siongco, TJ Robinson T. Moncatar, Lourdes Marie S. Tejero, Shelley Ann F. De La Vega, Sheila R. Bonito, Richard Javier, Takako Tsutsui, Tran Dai Tri Han, Man Thi Hue Vo, Yuri Tashiro, Saber Al-Sobaihi, Kaoruko Seino, Thang Van Vo, Fely Marilyn E. Lorenzo, Carmelita C. Canila

Abstract

A growing number of older adults require complex care, but coordination among professionals to provide comprehensive and high-quality care is perceived to be inadequate. Opportunities to gain the knowledge and skills important for interprofessional collaboration in the context of geriatric care are limited, particularly for those already in the workforce. A short-term training programme in interprofessional collaboration for health and social care workers in the Philippines was designed and pilot tested. The programme was devised following a review of the literature about geriatric care education and group interviews about training needs. The objectives of this paper are to introduce the training programme and to evaluate its influence on attitudes and readiness to collaborate among participants using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. A total of 42 community health workers and 40 health institution workers participated in the training in July 2019. Quantitative indicators were used to evaluate attitudes towards and readiness for collaboration before and after the training. Content analysis was performed of responses to open-ended questions asking participants to evaluate the training. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was applied to determine the patterns of similarities or differences between the quantitative and qualitative data. Significant improvements were seen in scores on the Attitudes Towards Health Care Teams Scale among community health (P < 0.001) and health institution (P < 0.001) staff after the training. Scenario-based case studies allowed participants to work in groups to practise collaboration across professional and institutional boundaries; the case studies fostered greater collaboration and continuity of care. Exposure to other professionals during the training led to a deeper understanding of current practices among health and social care workers. Use of the scenario-based case studies followed by task-based discussion in groups was successful in engaging care professionals to provide patient-centred care. This pilot test of in-service training in interprofessional collaboration in geriatric care improved community and health institution workers' attitudes towards such collaboration. A 3-day training attended by health and social care workers from diverse healthcare settings resulted in recommendations to enhance collaboration when caring for older adults in their current work settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 16 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 20%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 18 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2022.
All research outputs
#20,742,744
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,224
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#352,088
of 444,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#37
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.