↓ Skip to main content

Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2290-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Dominika Wranik, Susan M. Haydt, Alan Katz, Adrian R. Levy, Maryna Korchagina, Jeanette M. Edwards, Ian Bower

Abstract

Reliance on interdisciplinary teams in the delivery of primary care is on the rise. Funding bodies strive to design financial environments that support collaboration between providers. At present, the design of financial arrangements has been fragmented and not based on evidence. The root of the problem is a lack of systematic evidence demonstrating the superiority of any particular financial arrangement, or a solid understanding of options. In this study we develop a framework for the conceptualization and analysis of financial arrangements in interdisciplinary primary care teams. We use qualitative data from three sources: (i) interviews with 19 primary care decision makers representing 215 clinics in three Canadian provinces, (ii) a research roundtable with 14 primary care decision makers and/or researchers, and (iii) policy documents. Transcripts from interviews and the roundtable were coded thematically and a framework synthesis approach was applied. Our conceptual framework differentiates between team level funding and provider level remuneration, and characterizes the interplay and consonance between them. Particularly the notions of hierarchy, segregation, and dependence of provider incomes, and the link between funding and team activities are introduced as new clarifying concepts, and their implications explored. The framework is applied to the analysis of collaboration incentives, which appear strongest when provider incomes are interdependent, funding is linked to the team as a whole, and accountability does not have multiple lines. Emergent implementation issues discussed by respondents include: (i) centrality of budget negotiations; (ii) approaches to patient rostering; (iii) unclear funding sources for space and equipment; and (iv) challenges with community engagement. The creation of patient rosters is perceived as a surprisingly contentious issue, and the challenges of funding for space and equipment remain unresolved. The development and application of a conceptual framework is an important step to the systematic study of the best performing financial models in the context of interdisciplinary primary care. The identification of optimal financial arrangements must be contextualized in terms of feasibility and the implementation environment. In general, financial hierarchy, both overt and covert, is considered a barrier to collaboration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 30 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 18%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 34 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,599,092
of 23,993,601 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,104
of 8,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,517
of 313,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#27
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,993,601 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 313,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.