An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness

Tania Carron; Cloe Rawlinson; Chantal Arditi; Christine Cohidon; Quan Nha Hong; Pierre Pluye; Ingrid Gilles; Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux

doi:10.5334/ijic.5588

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Categorization of patient outcomes^a.

CATEGORIES OF PATIENT OUTCOMES	EXAMPLES OF INCLUDED OUTCOMES
Clinical outcomes	Depression/anxiety scale, HbA1c level, blood pressure, lipids, other clinical outcomes, symptomatology, recovery, remission, mortality, morbidity, survival
Medication outcomes	Medication use, medication adherence, compliance with medication, number of prescribed drugs
Healthcare use	Hospital admissions, hospital utilization, medical service use, emergency department visits, length of stay, usage, readmission rate, time to readmission
Processes of care	Provision of recommended tests and preventive services, adherence to recommended care guidelines (vaccination, monitoring), improved accessibility, reduced waiting times, treatment adequacy, appropriate medications
QoL, functioning, other PROMs	Patient quality of life, physical/emotional/and social functioning, patient health behaviors, health practices (lifestyle, self-care), self-perceived health, QALY
Patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction, attitudes and perceptions of care

[i] ^a HbA1c: Haemoglobin bA1c; PROMs: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures; QALY: Quality-Adjusted Life Years; QoL: Quality of Life.

Six types of interprofessional collaboration identified.
*Note*: professionals working outside the primary care setting collaborate with at least a primary care physician and can include other primary care providers.

Table 2

Results from included reviews for patient outcomes (n = 34).

TYPE OF COLLABORATION	AUTHORS, YEAR	META-ANALYSIS	CLINICAL OUTCOMES	MEDICATION OUTCOMES	HEALTHCARE USE	PROCESS OF CARE	QOL, FUNCTIONING, OTHER PROMS	PATIENT SATISFACTION
Interprofessional collaboration in primary care (large scope)	Barrett, 2007 [24]		+			+	+	+
	DeLoach, 2018 [25]		+
	Gougeon, 2017 [26]		?		?		+	+
	Martin, 2010 [27]		?		?		?	+
	Proia, 2014 [28]		+	+			+	+
	Schepman, 2015 [29]		?		?		?
	Trivedi, 2013 [30]		?		?	+	?	+
	Wranik, 2019 [31]		?	?	+	+	?
PCP – nurse practitioner collaboration	Norful, 2017 [32]		?			+	?
PCP – specialty care provider collaboration	Carmont, 2017 [36]				+		?
	Foy, 2010 [37]	√	+
	Mitchell, 2002 [33]		?		?	+	?	+
	Mitchell, 2015 [34]		?	?	?	?	?	?
	Smith, 2017 [35]	√	?	+	?	?	?	?
PCP – pharmacist collaboration	Hazen, 2017 [39]		0	0			0
	Kwint, 2013 [40]			?	0	?	0
	Health Quality Ontario, 2009 [38]	√	+
PCP – mental healthcare provider collaboration	Archer, 2012 [41]	√	+	+			+	+
	Bower, 2006 [45]	√	+	+
	Butler, 2008 [52]		+
	Coventry, 2014 [46]	√	+	+
	Craven, 2006 [54]		?	?	?	?	?	?
	Dham, 2017 [55]		?	+		+	?	?
	Fuller, 2011 a [53]		+			+
	Gilbody, 2006 [47]	√	+
	Gunn, 2006 [48]		+
	Huang, 2013 [50]	√	+	+
	Muntingh, 2016 [51]	√	+
	Panagioti, 2016 [49]	√	+
	Sighinolfi, 2014 [43]	√	+
	Thota, 2012 [42]	√	+	+			+	+
	van Steenbergen-Weijenburg, 2010 [44]		+				+
Intersectoral collaboration (primary care with nursing home, public health)	Davies, 2011 [56]		?	?
	Martin-Misener, 2012 [57]					+	+

[i] + Improvement: a review reports improvements in all outcomes from a category of outcomes (e.g. standardized mean difference, statistical significant difference before/after the intervention or versus a control group).

? Mixed results: a review reports mixed findings (e.g. improvement of one outcome but no change or worsening effect in another) between primary studies reporting the same outcome or between different outcomes of a given category.

0 No change: a review reports no change in the outcomes from a category of outcomes.

√ The review included a meta-analysis.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 2

Paradigm

My account