scholarly journals Team science as interprofessional collaborative research practice: a systematic review of the science of team science literature

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg M Little ◽  
Catherine A St Hill ◽  
Kenric B Ware ◽  
Michael T Swanoski ◽  
Scott A Chapman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Collaborative Practice ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Interprofessional Collaborative Practice ◽  
Science Of Team Science

The National Institute of Health's concept of team science is a means of addressing complex clinical problems by applying conceptual and methodological approaches from multiple disciplines and health professions. The ultimate goal is the improved quality of care of patients with an emphasis on better population health outcomes. Collaborative research practice occurs when researchers from >1 health-related profession engage in scientific inquiry to jointly create and disseminate new knowledge to clinical and research health professionals in order to provide the highest quality of patient care to improve population health outcomes. Training of clinicians and researchers is necessary to produce clinically relevant evidence upon which to base patient care for disease management and empirically guided team-based patient care. In this study, we hypothesized that team science is an example of effective and impactful interprofessional collaborative research practice. To assess this hypothesis, we examined the contemporary literature on the science of team science (SciTS) produced in the past 10 years (2005–2015) and related the SciTS to the overall field of interprofessional collaborative practice, of which collaborative research practice is a subset. A modified preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach was employed to analyze the SciTS literature in light of the general question: Is team science an example of interprofessional collaborative research practice? After completing a systematic review of the SciTS literature, the posed hypothesis was accepted, concluding that team science is a dimension of interprofessional collaborative practice.

scholarly journals Breaking Down Silos: Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in Humanitarian Audiology

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (02) ◽  
pp. 092-099
Author(s):  
Lindsay M. Bondurant
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Collaborative Practice ◽  
Positive Interventions ◽  
Interprofessional Collaborative Practice ◽  
Improve Health

AbstractThe goal of humanitarian healthcare is to improve health outcomes and patient quality of life in under-resourced areas. One avenue for improvement may be via interprofessional collaborative practice, which allows providers from multiple specialties to work together to promote positive interventions for the communities they serve. The purpose of this article is to provide a general framework for incorporating interprofessional collaborative practice within a humanitarian audiology project.

scholarly journals Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and health outcomes: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e010654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque ◽  
Varuni Kumari ◽  
Rasa Ruseckaite ◽  
Lorena Romero ◽  
Sue M Evans
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Registries ◽  
Quality Of Patient Care

How Does Mindfulness Affect Cognition? A Reflection on Confounding Issues Surrounding Mindfulness-based Intervention Research Targeting Cognitive Outcomes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R Vago ◽  
Resh Gupta ◽  
Sara Lazar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Cognitive Functioning ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cognitive Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Existing Data

One potential pathway by which mindfulness-based meditation improves health outcomes is through changes in cognitive functioning. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) was conducted with a focus on assessing the state of the evidence for effects on cognitive processes and associated assays. Here, we comment on confounding issues surrounding the reporting of these and related findings, including 1) criteria that appropriately define an MBI; 2) limitations of assays used to measure cognition; and 3) methodological quality of MBI trials and reporting of findings. Because these issues contribute to potentially distorted interpretations of existing data, we offer constructive means for interpretation and recommendations for moving the field of mindfulness research forward regarding the effects on cognition.

scholarly journals What do patients experience? Interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care: an integrative review

2022 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra R. Davidson ◽  
Jaimon Kelly ◽  
Lauren Ball ◽  
Mark Morgan ◽  
Dianne P. Reidlinger
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Chronic Condition ◽  
Collaborative Practice ◽  
Integrative Review ◽  
Patient Role ◽  
Interprofessional Collaborative Practice ◽  
Sharing Space ◽  
Patients Experience

Abstract Background Improving the patient experience is one of the quadruple aims of healthcare. Therefore, understanding patient experiences and perceptions of healthcare interactions is paramount to quality improvement. This integrative review aimed to explore how patients with chronic conditions experience Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in primary care. Methods An integrative review was conducted to comprehensively synthesize primary studies that used qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Databases searched were Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science on June 1st, 2021. Eligible studies were empirical full-text studies in primary care that reported experiences or perceptions of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice by adult patients with a chronic condition, in any language published in any year. Quality appraisal was conducted on included studies using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Data on patients’ experiences and perceptions of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in primary care were extracted, and findings were thematically analyzed through a meta-synthesis. Results Forty-eight (n = 48) studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of n = 3803 participants. Study quality of individual studies was limited by study design, incomplete reporting, and the potential for positive publication bias. Three themes and their sub-themes were developed inductively: (1) Interacting with Healthcare Teams, subthemes: widening the network, connecting with professionals, looking beyond the condition, and overcoming chronic condition collectively; (2) Valuing Convenient Healthcare, subthemes: sharing space and time, care planning creates structure, coordinating care, valuing the general practitioner role, and affording healthcare; (3) Engaging Self-care, subthemes: engaging passively is circumstantial, and, engaging actively and leading care. Conclusions Patients overwhelmingly had positive experiences of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice, signaling it is appropriate for chronic condition management in primary care. The patient role in managing their chronic condition was closely linked to their experience. Future studies should investigate how the patient role impacts the experience of patients, carers, and health professionals in this context. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42020156536.

scholarly journals Upaya Peningkatan Komunikasi Interprofesional Melalui Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (ICP) (Systematic Review)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Raihany Sholihatul Mukaromah ◽  
Luky Dwiantoro ◽  
Agus Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Base ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Collaborative Practice ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Interprofessional Collaborative Practice ◽  
Advanced Search

Peran dan fungsi care provider  interdisiplin dalam pelayanan kesehatan masih terfragmentasi sehingga pelayanan kesehatan interdisiplin yang diberikan kepada pasien menjadi tumpang tindih.  Fragmentasi interdisiplin dapat diatasi melalui Interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP). Kolaborasi yang baik diantara tim profesional kesehatan sangat diperlukan, agar dapat bertukar informasi dengan jelas dan komprehensif. Kompetensi inti dalam Interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) adalah komunikasi interprofesional yang efektif. Tujuan dari systematic review ini untuk mengetahui apakah ICP dapat meningkatkan kemampuan tenaga kesehatan dalam melakukan komunikasi interprofesional. Metode yang digunakan Systematic review dengan cara melakukan penelusuran literature data base dari Ebscho, Sciendirect, PubMed dan Google scholar dengan menggunakan advanced search keyword. Kata kunci yang dipilih adalah Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (ICP), Communication Interprofessional, health workers. Pencarian dibatasi pada tahun 2006 – 2016, pdf full text dan menggunakan bahasa inggris. Kriteria inklusi dari artikel, ini yaitu responden : tenaga kesehatan, intervensi yang digunakan Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (ICP), outcome yang diukur adalah kemampuan komunikasi interprofesional tenaga kesehatan. Didapatkan 6 artikel yang sesuai dengan kriteria inklusi, ke 6 artikel ini dilakukan review. Hasil : masing masing artikel memberikan outcome terhadap peningkatan komunikasi interprofesional dan 2 artikel menghasilkan 3 tema. ICP secara efektif dapat meningkatkan kemampuan tenaga kesehatan dalam melakukan komunikasi interprofesional. Diharapkan pimpinan rumah sakit dapat membuat kebijakan khusus terkait pelaksanaan ICP dan merancang model pelaksanaan ICP yang melibatkan semua profesi kesehatan agar dapat diaplikasikan di pelayanan kesehatan sebagai upaya pengembangan komunikasi interprofesional yang efektif serta meningkatkan kualitas pelayanan kesehatan yang bermutu sehingga peran profesional setiap disiplin berjalan dengan baik.

Exploring Quality of Life in End-of-Life Discussions

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 465-473
Author(s):  
Terry Eggenberger ◽  
Heather Howard ◽  
Dana Prescott ◽  
George Luck
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Collaborative Practice ◽  
Health Care Proxy ◽  
Interprofessional Collaborative Practice ◽  
Value Based Care

Advance directives (ADs) allow individuals to legally determine their preferences for end-of-life (EOL) medical treatment and designate a health-care proxy to act on their behalf prior to losing the cognitive ability to make informed decisions for themselves. An interprofessional group of researchers (law, nursing, medicine, and social work) conducted an exploratory study to identify the differences in quality-of-life (QOL) language found within the AD state statutes from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Data were coded using constant comparative analysis. Identified concepts were grouped into 2 focus areas for EOL discussions: communication/awareness of surroundings and activities of daily living. Language regarding communication/awareness of surroundings was present in the half of the statutes. Activities of daily living were addressed in only 18% of the statutes. Only 3 states (Arkansas, Nevada, and Tennessee) specifically addressed QOL. Patients are best served when professionals, regardless of discipline, can share and transform knowledge for patients in times of crisis and loss in ways that are empathetic and precise. Interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) comprises multiple health workers from different professional backgrounds working together with patients, families, and communities to deliver the highest quality of care. One of the major competencies of IPCP encompasses values and ethics. Interprofessional collaborative practice is offered as the means to deliver person-centered value-based care when facilitating these crucial dialogs and making recommendations for change.

scholarly journals Collaborative Research: Techniques for Conducting Collaborative Research From the Science of Team Science (SciTS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Turner ◽  
Rose Baker
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Human Resource Development ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Collaborative Environments ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Science Of Team Science ◽  
Collaborative Efforts ◽  
Improved Methods

The Problem The field of human resource development (HRD) is a multidisciplinary field of research and practice requiring collaboration. Unfortunately, the literature on how to conduct collaborative research is incomplete within HRD and other disciplines. Any breakdown in the communication, exchange of ideas, agreed-upon methodologies, or shared credit for dissemination has the potential of preventing research from moving forward. Promotion and tenure policies also hamper collaborative efforts in that these policies often reward individual initiative as opposed to collaborative outcomes. These behavioral patterns provide constraints to the improvement and betterment of efforts to changing of the guard. The Solution This article highlights new and improved methods for working in collaborative environments. During an academic’s transition and professional development, these methods will help emerging scholars, new to collaborative research, when facing the team science revolution. The Stakeholders Scholars and scholar-practitioners engaged in collaborative research. Emerging scholars who are beginning their journey into collaborative research. Graduate students preparing for a career in academia.

scholarly journals Hospital and outpatient models for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A systematic review of comparative studies for health outcomes, experience of care and costs

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0254135
Author(s):  
Marino J. González ◽  
Elena Urizar ◽  
Maider Urtaran-Laresgoiti ◽  
Roberto Nuño-Solinís ◽  
Esther Lázaro-Pérez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem Cell ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Experience Of Care

The number of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantations has risen in the past 20 years. The practice of outpatient Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation programs is increasing in an attempt to improve the quality of patient care and reduce the demand for hospital admission. A systematic review of 29 comparative studies between in-hospital and outpatient treatment of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, with no restriction by outpatient regime was conducted. This study aims to analyse the current evidence on the effects of the outpatient model on patient-centred outcomes, comparing both in-hospital and outpatient models for autologous and allogeneic HSCT using the Triple Aim framework: health outcomes, costs and experience of care. We found evidence on improved health outcomes and quality of life, on enhanced safety and effectiveness and on reduced overall costs and hospital stays, with similar results on overall survival rates comparing both models for autologous and allogeneic patients. We also found that the outpatient Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation is a safe practice as well as less costly, it requires fewer days of hospital stay both for autologous and allogeneic transplantations. Under a situation of an increasing number of transplants, rising healthcare costs and shortages of hospital capacity, incorporating outpatient models could improve the quality of care for people requiring Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation programs.

scholarly journals Health outcomes associated with Zika virus infection in humans: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Ximenes ◽  
Lauren C Ramsay ◽  
Rafael Neves Miranda ◽  
Shaun K Morris ◽  
Kellie Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Zika Virus ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
New Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveWith the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) disease in Central and South America in the mid-2010s and recognition of the teratogenic effects of congenital exposure to ZIKV, there has been a substantial increase in new research published on ZIKV. Our objective is to synthesise the literature on health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection in humans.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) databases from inception to 22 July 2019, and included SRs that reported ZIKV-associated health outcomes. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.ResultsThe search yielded 1382 unique articles, of which 21 SRs met our inclusion criteria. The 21 SRs ranged from descriptive to quantitative data synthesis, including four meta-analyses. The most commonly reported ZIKV-associated manifestations and health outcomes were microcephaly, congenital abnormalities, brain abnormalities, neonatal death and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The included reviews were highly heterogeneous. The overall quality of the SRs was critically low with all studies having more than one critical weakness.ConclusionThe evolving nature of the literature on ZIKV-associated health outcomes, together with the critically low quality of existing SRs, demonstrates the need for high-quality SRs to guide patient care and inform policy decision making.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091087.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document