Table 1
Articles, informants, context, and methods in the four sub-projects.
| Sub-project | Article | Informants Providers/patients | Context | Recruiting informants | Data collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johannessen I | 16/8 | Intermediate unit | Strategic sample | Individual interviews Group interviews Observations in collaboration meetings |
| Johannessen II | 38/8 | Intermediate unit Hospital Four municipalities | Strategic sample Snow ball sampling | Individual interviews Observations in collaboration meetings | |
| Johannessen III | 38/0 | Intermediate unit Hospital Four municipalities | Strategic sample Snow ball sampling | Individual interviews Observations in collaboration meetings | |
| 2 | Ådnanes I Ådnanes II | 0/9 | Mental health field | Recruited from municipal services, user organization, secondary school, and snow ball sampling | Repeated individual interviews |
| 3 | Steihaug I Steihaug II | 24/0 | Home-based services | Strategic sample | Individual interviews Group interviews |
| 4 | Paulsen | 10/0 | Primary health care | Strategic sample | Individual interviews |
Table 2
Translating the studies into each another – first order analysis.
| Johannessen I | Johannessen II | Johannessen III | Ådnanes I | Ådnanes II | Steihaug I | Steihaug II | Paulsen | Our Translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The nurses in the intermediate unit collaborated appropriately and the patient felt well cared for. | The collaboration between different organisational levels was mainly a “nursing thing”. | Nurses had an inclusive collaborative culture which excluded other professional groups. Inter-professional collaboration was poor. | Repeated disruptions occured in the care pathway when the patient was transferred from one service unit or level to another. Individual plans were established, but did not worl as intended. | A lack of appropriate cooperation was found between provider and patient and between providers. | In the relevant rehabilitation case the different services were established, but the providers did not collaborate appropriately. The patient was not involved in developing her rehabilitation plan. | Home-based rehabilitation was afforded little attention and seldom occured in practice. The providers needed better inter-professional collaboration but framework condition were locking. | Several providers wished to collaborate with GPs, but the GPs had to make priorities. GPs preffered to collabrates with their professional hospital colleagues. | Good professionals collaboration was achieved, but the providers did not succeed achieving effective inter-professional collaboration. Collaboration between patients and providers in mental health was often poor. |
| A nursing perspective and nursing activities dominated in the unit. Physio-therapistis and occupational therapists missed more rehabilitation. | There was disagreement between the collaborative partners about inclusion criteria and “suitable” patients for the unit and about what were the unit’s role and tasks. | Different professionals had different opinions about inter-professional collaboration. The physician performed medical work, while the others wanted her to contribute to rehabilitation. There was medical dominance in inter-professional meetings. | Different views of “treatment” complicated the collaboration between the primary health care and the specialist services. | Patients and providers had different understanding of illnesses, diagnoses, treatment, and patient involvment. Providers in specialist services were regarded as “therapists”, while providers in primary services were “helpers”. | Different professional groups disagreed as to what rehabilitation is and had different foci in the rehabilitation process. Providers and managers disagreed on the aim of reducing the face-to-face communication in the home-based services. | Different occupational groups worked seperately with different methods againts different goals in the relevant rehabilitation case. Providers in different positions and different levels disagreed about how best to prioritise rehabilitation. | Different professionals in the municipality had different views on inter-professional collaboration and different views on the GP’s role as a collaborative partner. | Different professionals and different units had a range of conflicting perspectives and worked towards different goals. |
| The intermediate unit consituted collaboration between a hospital and four municipalities. This gives rise to a new collaboration interface in patients discharge. | The three organisational levels’ differnet aims and tasks hampered the collaboration. The hospital aimes to discharge patients at once they were ready, the unit wanted patients needing rehabilitation, and the minicipality wanted the patients to stay as long as possible. | Different symptoms were treated in different department in hospitals or in different hospitals. There were lacking collaboration structures between different department in specialist services and between the two levels. | Specialist services were responsible for “treatment” and the municipality for “following up” patients. The users found that their services were not coordinated appropriately between units in specialist services or between levels, Coordinating tools were found inadequate. | A coordinating units for rehabilitation was lacking in the boroughs. | Purchaser/provider organisation’s splitting up work into smaller, measurable units hampered inter-professional collaboration in rehabilitation work. | Each professional group had their own organisation without appropriate coordinating structure in place in the municipalities. Purchaser provider splits organisation hampered collaboration. | Organisation principles served as a barrier to appropriate collaboration between departments and between professionals. |