Dataset Information

Capitalizing on synergies-a discourse analysis of the process of collaboration among providers of integrative health care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Integrative health care (IHC) combines therapies and providers from complementary and conventional health care. Previous studies on IHC have shown power relations between providers but few studies have explored how the interaction develops over time. The objective of this study was to explore the development of IHC collaboration and interaction among participating providers during a series of consensus case conferences for managing patients with back and neck pain.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted within a pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial in primary care. Patients' treatment plans were developed based on IHC provider consensus conferences (n = 26) of which 15 (5 of the first, 5 in the middle, and 5 of the last in the clinical trial) were selected for analysis. Findings were derived by means of discourse analysis, focusing on the participants' use of subject positions during the conferences.

Findings

The IHC team in this study gradually formed a group identity, moving their subject positions from individual treating subjects to members of a team and were able to make consensus-based decisions about patients' individual treatment plans. In the discourse, the IHC team identified collaborative shortcomings and problematized the provision of IHC. They were able to capitalize on the synergies in their collaboration and developed a shared vision of IHC provision.

Conclusions

The process of IHC collaboration involved the gradual formation of an IHC team identity, which facilitated interdisciplinary, non-hierarchical consensus-based decision-making in the team. The discourse further suggests that a reform of some legal and organizational health sector barriers might be needed to realize sustainable implementation of IHC services in Sweden.

SUBMITTER: Andermo S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4367985 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Capitalizing on synergies-a discourse analysis of the process of collaboration among providers of integrative health care.

Andermo Susanne S Sundberg Tobias T Forsberg Christina C Falkenberg Torkel T

PloS one 20150320 3

<h4>Background</h4>Integrative health care (IHC) combines therapies and providers from complementary and conventional health care. Previous studies on IHC have shown power relations between providers but few studies have explored how the interaction develops over time. The objective of this study was to explore the development of IHC collaboration and interaction among participating providers during a series of consensus case conferences for managing patients with back and neck pain.<h4>Methods< ...[more]

PMID: 25793967

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundToday's remarkable popularity of value-based health care (VBHC) is accompanied by considerable ambiguity concerning the very meaning of the concept. This is evident within academic publications, and mirrored in fragmented and diversified implementation efforts, both within and across countries.MethodThis article builds on discourse analysis in order to map the ambiguity surrounding VBHC. We conducted a document analysis of publicly accessible, official publications (n =?22) by actors and organizations that monitor and influence the quality of care in the Netherlands. Additionally, between March and July 2019, we conducted a series of semi-structured interviews (n =?23) with national stakeholders.ResultsOur research revealed four discourses, each with their own perception regarding the main purpose of VBHC. Firstly, we identified a Patient Empowerment discourse in which VBHC is a framework for strengthening the position of patients regarding their medical decisions. Secondly, in the Governance discourse, VBHC is a toolkit to incentivize providers. Thirdly, within the Professionalism discourse, VBHC is a methodology for healthcare delivery. Fourthly, in the Critique discourse, VBHC is rebuked as a dogma of manufacturability. We also show, however, that these diverging lines of reasoning find common ground: they perceive shared decision-making to be a key component of VBHC. Strikingly, this common perception contrasts with the pioneering literature on VBHC.ConclusionsThe four discourses will profoundly shape the diverse manners in which VBHC moves from an abstract concept to the practical provision and administration of health care. Moreover, our study reveals that VBHC's conceptual ambiguity largely arises from differing and often deeply rooted presuppositions, which underlie these discourses, and which frame different perceptions on value in health care. The meaning of VBHC - including its perceived implications for action - thus depends greatly on the frame of reference an actor or organization brings to bear as they aim for more value for patients. Recognizing this is a vital concern when studying, implementing and evaluating VBHC.

Project description:ContextInteprofessional collaboration (IPC) between biomedically trained doctors (BMD) and traditional, complementary and alternative medicine practitioners (TCAMP) is an essential element in the development of successful integrative healthcare (IHC) services. This systematic review aims to identify organizational strategies that would facilitate this process.MethodsWe searched 4 international databases for qualitative studies on the theme of BMD-TCAMP IPC, supplemented with a purposive search of 31 health services and TCAM journals. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using published checklist. Results of each included study were synthesized using a framework approach, with reference to the Structuration Model of Collaboration.FindingsThirty-seven studies of acceptable quality were included. The main driver for developing integrative healthcare was the demand for holistic care from patients. Integration can best be led by those trained in both paradigms. Bridge-building activities, positive promotion of partnership and co-location of practices are also beneficial for creating bonding between team members. In order to empower the participation of TCAMP, the perceived power differentials need to be reduced. Also, resources should be committed to supporting team building, collaborative initiatives and greater patient access. Leadership and funding from central authorities are needed to promote the use of condition-specific referral protocols and shared electronic health records. More mature IHC programs usually formalize their evaluation process around outcomes that are recognized both by BMD and TCAMP.ConclusionsThe major themes emerging from our review suggest that successful collaborative relationships between BMD and TCAMP are similar to those between other health professionals, and interventions which improve the effectiveness of joint working in other healthcare teams with may well be transferable to promote better partnership between the paradigms. However, striking a balance between the different practices and preserving the epistemological stance of TCAM will remain the greatest challenge in successful integration.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative and stepped care (CSC) models are recommended for mental disorders. Their successful implementation depends on effective collaboration between involved care providers from primary and specialist care. To gain insights into the collaboration experiences of care providers in CSC against the backdrop of usual mental health care, a qualitative process evaluation was realized as part of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (COMET) of a collaborative and stepped care model in Hamburg (Germany).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with N = 24 care providers from primary and specialist care (outpatient psychotherapists and psychiatrists, inpatient/ day clinic mental health providers) within and outside of COMET at the trial's beginning and 12 months later. Interviews were analyzed applying a qualitative structuring content analysis approach, combining deductive and inductive category development.ResultsUsual mental health care was considered deficient in resources, with collaboration being scarce and mainly taking place in small informal networks. Within the COMET trial, quicker referral paths were welcomed, as were quarterly COMET network meetings which provided room for exchange and fostered mutual understanding. Yet, also in COMET, collaboration remained difficult due to communication problems, the unfavorable regional distribution of the COMET care providers and interprofessional discrepancies regarding each profession's role, competencies and mutual esteem. Ideas for improvement included more localized networks, the inclusion of further professions and the overall amelioration of mental health care regarding resources and remuneration, especially for collaborative activities.ConclusionsThe process evaluation of the COMET trial revealed the benefits of creating room for interprofessional encounter to foster collaborative care. Despite the benefits of faster patient referrals, the COMET network did not fulfill all care providers' prior expectations. A focus should be set on interprofessional competencies, mutual perception and role clarification, as these have been revealed as significant barriers to collaboration within CSC models such as COMET.Trial registrationThe COMET trial (Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers) has been registered on July 24, 2017 under the trial registration number NCT03226743 .

Project description:Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a diverse group of malignancies that pose challenges common to all rare tumors. The Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumor Collaboration (CommNETS) was established in 2015 to enhance outcomes for patients with NETs in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. A modified Delphi process was undertaken involving patients, clinicians, and researchers to identify gaps in NETs research to produce a comprehensive and defensible research action plan.A three-round modified Delphi process was undertaken with larger representation than usual for medical consensus processes. Patient/advocate and health care provider/researcher expert panels undertook Round 1, which canvassed 17 research priorities and 42 potential topics; in Round 2, these priorities were ranked. Round 3 comprised a face-to-face meeting to generate final consensus rankings and formulate the research action plan.The Delphi groups consisted of 203 participants in Round 1 (64% health care providers/researchers, 36% patient/advocates; 52% Canadian, 32% Australian, and 17% New Zealander), of whom 132 participated in Round 2. The top eight priorities were biomarker development; peptide receptor radionuclide therapy optimization; trials of new agents in advanced NETs; functional imaging; sequencing therapies for metastatic NETs, including development of validated surrogate end points for studies; pathologic classification; early diagnosis; interventional therapeutics; and curative surgery. Two major areas were ranked significantly higher by patients/advocates: early diagnosis and curative surgery. Six CommNETS working parties were established.This modified Delphi process resulted in a well-founded set of research priorities for the newly formed CommNETS collaboration by involving a large, diverse group of stakeholders. This approach to setting a research agenda for a new collaborative group should be adopted to ensure that research plans reflect unmet needs and priorities in the field.

Project description:BackgroundFemale genital mutilation (FGM) is a traditional harmful practice that can cause severe physical and psychological damages to girls and women. Increasingly, trained health-care providers carry out the practice at the request of families. It is important to understand the motivations of providers in order to reduce the medicalization of FGM. This integrative review identifies, appraises and summarizes qualitative and quantitative literature exploring the factors that are associated with the medicalization of FGM and/or re-infibulation.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL and grey literature databases. Hand searches of identified studies were also examined. The "CASP Qualitative Research Checklist" and the "STROBE Statement" were used to assess the methodological quality of the qualitative and quantitative studies respectively. A total of 354 articles were reviewed for inclusion.ResultsFourteen (14) studies, conducted in countries where FGM is largely practiced as well as in countries hosting migrants from these regions, were included. The main findings about the motivations of health-care providers to practice FGM were: (1) the belief that performing FGM would be less harmful for girls or women than the procedure being performed by a traditional practitioner (the so-called "harm reduction" perspective); (2) the belief that the practice was justified for cultural reasons; (3) the financial gains of performing the procedure; (4) responding to requests of the community or feeling pressured by the community to perform FGM. The main reasons given by health-care providers for not performing FGM were that they (1) are concerned about the risks that FGM can cause for girls' and women's health; (2) are preoccupied by the legal sanctions that might result from performing FGM; and (3) consider FGM to be a "bad practice".ConclusionThe findings of this review can inform public health program planners, policy makers and researchers to adapt or create strategies to end medicalization of FGM in countries with high prevalence of this practice, as well as in countries hosting immigrants from these regions. Given the methodological limitations in the included studies, it is clear that more robust in-depth qualitative studies are needed, in order to better tackle the complexity of this phenomenon and contribute to eradicating FGM throughout the world.

Project description:BackgroundConducting a process evaluation is essential to understand how health interventions work in different healthcare settings. Particularly in the case of complex interventions, it is important to find out whether the intervention could be carried out as planned and which factors had a beneficial or hindering effect on its implementation. The aim of this study is to present the detailed protocol of the process evaluation embedded in the controlled implementation study CCC-Integrativ aiming to implement an interprofessional counselling program for cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care (CIH).MethodsThis mixed methods study will draw upon the "Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research" (CFIR) combined with the concept of "intervention fidelity" to evaluate the quality of the interprofessional counselling sessions, to explore the perspective of the directly and indirectly involved healthcare staff, as well as to analyze the perceptions and experiences of the patients. The qualitative evaluation phase consists of analyzing audio-recorded counselling sessions, as well as individual and group interviews with the involved persons. The quantitative evaluation phase applies questionnaires which are distributed before (T0), at the beginning (T1), in the middle (T2) and at the end (T3) of the intervention delivery.DiscussionThis protocol provides an example of how a process evaluation can be conducted parallel to a main study investigating and implementing a complex intervention. The results of this mixed methods research will make it possible to identify strengths and weaknesses of the team-based intervention, and to target more specifically the key factors and structures required to implement healthcare structures to meet patients' unmet needs in the context of CIH. To our knowledge, this study is the first applying the CFIR framework in the context of interprofessional CIH counselling, and its results are expected to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary management of cancer patients with complex supportive healthcare needs.

Dataset Information

Capitalizing on synergies-a discourse analysis of the process of collaboration among providers of integrative health care.

Background

Methods

Findings

Conclusions

Publications

Capitalizing on synergies-a discourse analysis of the process of collaboration among providers of integrative health care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets