Evaluating the impact of interprofessional collaboration in the community: a group concept mapping study.
Saved in:
| Title: | Evaluating the impact of interprofessional collaboration in the community: a group concept mapping study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Fanchamps, Nardie (AUTHOR), van Lambaart, Femke (AUTHOR), Smeets, Hester Wilhelmina Henrica (AUTHOR), Stoyanov, Slavi (AUTHOR), van Dongen, Jerôme Jean Jacques (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Interprofessional Care. Mar/Apr2026, Vol. 40 Issue 2, p206-217. 12p. |
| Subjects: | Community health services, Corporate culture, Interprofessional relations, Cost effectiveness, Cluster analysis (Statistics), T-test (Statistics), Questionnaires, Communities, Judgment sampling, Health risk assessment, Conceptual structures, Research methodology, Research, Storytelling, Quality assurance, Concepts |
| Abstract: | Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is widely promoted as a strategy to improve healthcare quality and integration. However, IPC's impact is difficult to evaluate due to its multidimensional, context-dependent nature. Existing approaches to IPC impact evaluation are fragmented, often favoring quantitative metrics or qualitative insights that lack comparability. Consequently, more insight is needed into how to evaluate IPC impact. We used Group Concept Mapping, a mixed-methods approach, to explore expert perspectives on IPC impact evaluation in community-based care. The findings revealed three key perspectives – added-value, methodological, and conceptual/organizational – emphasizing the need for a balanced approach combining quantitative (e.g. outcomes, cost-effectiveness) and qualitative methods (e.g. storytelling, monitoring). Experts emphasized that IPC evaluation must balance measurability with contextual flexibility to capture complexity and remain practical. Across perspectives, experts perceived a clear gap between the perceived importance of demonstrating IPC impact and the feasibility of doing so in everyday practice, highlighting structural and organizational barriers. Our findings underscore the need for structured yet adaptable IPC evaluation models that incorporate both outcome-based assessment and in-depth contextual understanding. Future researchers should focus on developing integrative frameworks that support evidence-based evaluation and accommodating the dynamic nature of IPC in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Interprofessional Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is widely promoted as a strategy to improve healthcare quality and integration. However, IPC's impact is difficult to evaluate due to its multidimensional, context-dependent nature. Existing approaches to IPC impact evaluation are fragmented, often favoring quantitative metrics or qualitative insights that lack comparability. Consequently, more insight is needed into how to evaluate IPC impact. We used Group Concept Mapping, a mixed-methods approach, to explore expert perspectives on IPC impact evaluation in community-based care. The findings revealed three key perspectives – added-value, methodological, and conceptual/organizational – emphasizing the need for a balanced approach combining quantitative (e.g. outcomes, cost-effectiveness) and qualitative methods (e.g. storytelling, monitoring). Experts emphasized that IPC evaluation must balance measurability with contextual flexibility to capture complexity and remain practical. Across perspectives, experts perceived a clear gap between the perceived importance of demonstrating IPC impact and the feasibility of doing so in everyday practice, highlighting structural and organizational barriers. Our findings underscore the need for structured yet adaptable IPC evaluation models that incorporate both outcome-based assessment and in-depth contextual understanding. Future researchers should focus on developing integrative frameworks that support evidence-based evaluation and accommodating the dynamic nature of IPC in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13561820 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/13561820.2026.2619964 |
