IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0177026.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the facilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary team working in primary care using normalisation process theory: An integrative review

Author

Listed:
  • Pauline O’Reilly
  • Siew Hwa Lee
  • Madeleine O’Sullivan
  • Walter Cullen
  • Catriona Kennedy
  • Anne MacFarlane

Abstract

Background: Interdisciplinary team working is of paramount importance in the reform of primary care in order to provide cost-effective and comprehensive care. However, international research shows that it is not routine practice in many healthcare jurisdictions. It is imperative to understand levers and barriers to the implementation process. This review examines interdisciplinary team working in practice, in primary care, from the perspective of service providers and analyses 1 barriers and facilitators to implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care and 2 the main research gaps. Methods and findings: An integrative review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Following a search of 10 international databases, 8,827 titles were screened for relevance and 49 met the criteria. Quality of evidence was appraised using predetermined criteria. Data were analysed following the principles of framework analysis using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which has four constructs: sense making, enrolment, enactment, and appraisal. The literature is dominated by a focus on interdisciplinary working between physicians and nurses. There is a dearth of evidence about all NPT constructs apart from enactment. Physicians play a key role in encouraging the enrolment of others in primary care team working and in enabling effective divisions of labour in the team. The experience of interdisciplinary working emerged as a lever for its implementation, particularly where communication and respect were strong between professionals. Conclusion: A key lever for interdisciplinary team working in primary care is to get professionals working together and to learn from each other in practice. However, the evidence base is limited as it does not reflect the experiences of all primary care professionals and it is primarily about the enactment of team working. We need to know much more about the experiences of the full network of primary care professionals regarding all aspects of implementation work. Systematic review registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015019362.

Suggested Citation

  • Pauline O’Reilly & Siew Hwa Lee & Madeleine O’Sullivan & Walter Cullen & Catriona Kennedy & Anne MacFarlane, 2017. "Assessing the facilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary team working in primary care using normalisation process theory: An integrative review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177026
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177026
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177026&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0177026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.