Interprofessional collaboration in primary care: what effect on patient health? A systematic literature review

被引:11
作者
Bouton, Celine [1 ,2 ]
Journeaux, Manon [1 ]
Jourdain, Maud [1 ,2 ]
Angibaud, Morgane [2 ]
Huon, Jean-Francois [2 ,3 ]
Rat, Cedric [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nantes, Fac Med, Dept Gen Practice, 1 Rue Gaston Veil, F-44035 Nantes, France
[2] Univ Nantes, Fac Med, Primary Care Federat Dept, Nantes, France
[3] Univ Nantes, Fac Pharm, Nantes, France
来源
BMC PRIMARY CARE | 2023年 / 24卷 / 01期
关键词
Interprofessional collaboration; Primary care; Cardiovascular; Polypathology; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; BLOOD-PRESSURE CONTROL; GUIDED CARE; DIABETES-MELLITUS; INTEGRATED HEALTH; OLDER PERSONS; MEDICAL-CARE; QUALITY; DEPRESSION; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1186/s12875-023-02189-0
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
BackgroundIn a period of change in the organization of primary care, Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) is presented as one of the solutions to health issues. Although the number of inter-professional interventions grounded in primary care increases in all developed countries, evidence on the effects of these collaborations on patient-centred outcomes is patchy. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of IPC grounded in the primary care setting on patient-centred outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 01/01/1995 to 01/03/2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting the effects of IPC in primary care on patient health outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Downs and Black checklist.ResultsSixty-five articles concerning 61 interventions were analysed. A total of 43 studies were prospective and randomized. Studies were classified into 3 main categories as follows: 1) studies with patients at cardiovascular risk (28 studies)-including diabetes (18 studies) and arterial hypertension (5 studies); 2) studies including elderly and/or polypathological patients (18 studies); and 3) patients with symptoms of mental or physical disorders (15 studies). The number of included patients varied greatly (from 50 to 312,377). The proportion of studies that reported a positive effect of IPC on patient-centred outcomes was as follows: 23 out of the 28 studies including patients at cardiovascular risk, 8 out of the 18 studies of elderly or polypathological patients, and 11 out of the 12 studies of patients with mental or physical disorders.ConclusionsEvidence suggests that IPC is effective in the management of patients at cardiovascular risk. In elderly or polypathological patients and in patients with mental or physical disorders, the number of studies remains very limited, and the results are heterogeneous. Researchers should be encouraged to perform studies based on comparative designs: it would increase evidence on the positive effect and benefits of IPC on patient variables.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 93 条
  • [91] World Health Organization Fund (UNICEF) UNC, 2018, Report No.: WHO/HIS/SDS/2018.15
  • [92] Implications of interprofessional primary care team characteristics for health services and patient health outcomes: A systematic review with narrative synthesis
    Wranik, Wieslawa Dominika
    Price, Sheri
    Haydt, Susan M.
    Edwards, Jeanette
    Hatfield, Krista
    Weir, Julie
    Doria, Nicole
    [J]. HEALTH POLICY, 2019, 123 (06) : 550 - 563
  • [93] Innovative tools for quality assessment: integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS)
    Zingg, W.
    Castro-Sanchez, E.
    Secci, F. V.
    Edwards, R.
    Drumright, L. N.
    Sevdalis, N.
    Holmes, A. H.
    [J]. PUBLIC HEALTH, 2016, 133 : 19 - 37