↓ Skip to main content

Relational coordination in interprofessional teams and its effect on patient-reported benefit and continuity of care: a prospective cohort study from rehabilitation centres in Western Norway

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 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
Relational coordination in interprofessional teams and its effect on patient-reported benefit and continuity of care: a prospective cohort study from rehabilitation centres in Western Norway
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3536-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Merethe Hustoft, Eva Biringer, Sturla Gjesdal, Jörg Aβmus, Øystein Hetlevik

Abstract

Rehabilitation services depend on competent professionals who collaborate effectively. Well-functioning interprofessional teams are expected to positively impact continuity of care. Key factors in continuity of care are communication and collaboration among health care professionals in a team and their patients. This study assessed the associations between team functioning and patient-reported benefits and continuity of care in somatic rehabilitation centres. This prospective cohort study uses survey data from 984 patients and from health care professionals in 15 teams in seven somatic rehabilitation centres in Western Norway. Linear mixed effect models were used to investigate associations between the interprofessional team communication and relationship scores (measured by the Relational Coordination [RC] Survey and patient-reported benefit and personal-, team- and cross-boundary continuity of care. Patient-reported continuity of care was measured using the Norwegian version of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire. The mean communication score for healthcare teams was 3.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.78, 4.00), and the mean relationship score was 4.1 (SD = 0.56, 95% CI = 3.97, 4.18). Communication scores in rehabilitation teams varied from 3.4-4.3 and relationship scores from 3.6-4.5. Patients treated by teams with higher relationship scores experienced better continuity between health care professionals in the team at the rehabilitation centre (b = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.68; p = 0.024). There was a positive association between RC communication in the team the patient was treated by and patient-reported activities of daily living benefit score; all other associations between RC scores and rehabilitation benefit scores were not significant. Team function is associated with better patient-reported continuity of care and higher ADL-benefit scores among patients after rehabilitation. These findings indicate that interprofessional teams' RC scores may predict rehabilitation outcomes, but further studies are needed before RC scores can be used as a quality indicator in somatic rehabilitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 5 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 5%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 38 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 15%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 39 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,526,582
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,648
of 7,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,769
of 341,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#128
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 341,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.