↓ Skip to main content

How best to structure interdisciplinary primary care teams: the study protocol for a systematic review with narrative framework synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
How best to structure interdisciplinary primary care teams: the study protocol for a systematic review with narrative framework synthesis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0339-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Dominika Wranik, Jill A. Hayden, Sheri Price, Robin M.N. Parker, Susan M. Haydt, Jeanette M. Edwards, Esther Suter, Alan Katz, Liesl L. Gambold, Adrian R. Levy

Abstract

Western publicly funded health care systems increasingly rely on interdisciplinary teams to support primary care delivery and management of chronic conditions. This knowledge synthesis focuses on what is known in the academic and grey literature about optimal structural characteristics of teams. Its goal is to assess which factors contribute to the effective functioning of interdisciplinary primary care teams and improved health system outcomes, with specific focus on (i) team structure contribution to team process, (ii) team process contribution to primary care goals, and (iii) team structure contribution to primary care goals. The systematic search of academic literature focuses on four chronic conditions and co-morbidities. Within this scope, qualitative and quantitative studies that assess the effects of team characteristics (funding, governance, organization) on care process and patient outcomes will be searched. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PAIS, Web of Science) will be searched systematically. Online web-based searches will be supported by the Grey Matters Tool. Studies will be included, if they report on interdisciplinary primary care in publicly funded Western health systems, and address the relationships between team structure, process, and/or patient outcomes. Studies will be selected in a three-stage screening process (title/abstract/full text) by two independent reviewers in each stage. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. An a priori framework will be applied to data extraction, and a narrative framework approach is used for the synthesis. Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, an electronic decision support tool will be developed for decision makers. It will be searchable along two axes of inquiry: (i) what primary care goals are supported by specific team characteristics and (ii) how should teams be structured to support specific primary care goals? The results of this evidence review will contribute directly to the design of interdisciplinary primary care teams. The optimized design will support the goals of primary care, contributing to the improved health of populations. PROSPERO CRD42016041884.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Librarian 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 24 28%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Social Sciences 12 14%
Psychology 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 17 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,645,554
of 12,009,062 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#632
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,909
of 275,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,009,062 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 275,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.