Cargando…
Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is seen as the “gold standard” of comprehensive care, but credible evidence concerning the effects on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to study the effect of IPC on PRO in inpatient care. METHODS: We sy...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9375378/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35964148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02027-x |
_version_ | 1784767951732211712 |
---|---|
author | Kaiser, Laura Conrad, Susann Neugebauer, Edmund A. M. Pietsch, Barbara Pieper, Dawid |
author_facet | Kaiser, Laura Conrad, Susann Neugebauer, Edmund A. M. Pietsch, Barbara Pieper, Dawid |
author_sort | Kaiser, Laura |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is seen as the “gold standard” of comprehensive care, but credible evidence concerning the effects on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to study the effect of IPC on PRO in inpatient care. METHODS: We systematically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and Embase) for studies published between 1997 and 2021. Additional studies were identified through citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies (NRS). The included controlled before-and-after study (CBA) was assessed using both the ROBINS-I and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) quality criteria. Results were synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of extracted data. RESULTS: The search yielded 10,213 records, from which 22 studies (16 RCTs, five NRS, and one CBA) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all but five studies, RoB was assessed as being high (RoB 2) resp. critical or serious (ROBINS-I). Within these 22 studies, nine inductively derived outcomes were assessed: (i) quality of life, (ii) coping, (iii) functional ability and health status, (iv) psychiatric morbidity, (v) pain, (vi) managing one’s own health care, (vii) treatment success, (viii) satisfaction, and (ix) therapeutic relationship. While some studies do not report effect estimates, and some of the reported effects appear to be imprecisely estimated, the overall results indicate that IPC may affect PRO positively across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Due to high clinical heterogeneity and high RoB, the question whether IPC affects PRO cannot be answered conclusively. Methodically rigorous studies are needed in order to answer the question of effectiveness of IPC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017073900 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02027-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9375378 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93753782022-08-14 Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review Kaiser, Laura Conrad, Susann Neugebauer, Edmund A. M. Pietsch, Barbara Pieper, Dawid Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is seen as the “gold standard” of comprehensive care, but credible evidence concerning the effects on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to study the effect of IPC on PRO in inpatient care. METHODS: We systematically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and Embase) for studies published between 1997 and 2021. Additional studies were identified through citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies (NRS). The included controlled before-and-after study (CBA) was assessed using both the ROBINS-I and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) quality criteria. Results were synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of extracted data. RESULTS: The search yielded 10,213 records, from which 22 studies (16 RCTs, five NRS, and one CBA) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all but five studies, RoB was assessed as being high (RoB 2) resp. critical or serious (ROBINS-I). Within these 22 studies, nine inductively derived outcomes were assessed: (i) quality of life, (ii) coping, (iii) functional ability and health status, (iv) psychiatric morbidity, (v) pain, (vi) managing one’s own health care, (vii) treatment success, (viii) satisfaction, and (ix) therapeutic relationship. While some studies do not report effect estimates, and some of the reported effects appear to be imprecisely estimated, the overall results indicate that IPC may affect PRO positively across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Due to high clinical heterogeneity and high RoB, the question whether IPC affects PRO cannot be answered conclusively. Methodically rigorous studies are needed in order to answer the question of effectiveness of IPC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017073900 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02027-x. BioMed Central 2022-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9375378/ /pubmed/35964148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02027-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Kaiser, Laura Conrad, Susann Neugebauer, Edmund A. M. Pietsch, Barbara Pieper, Dawid Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review |
title | Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review |
title_full | Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review |
title_short | Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review |
title_sort | interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9375378/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35964148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02027-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kaiserlaura interprofessionalcollaborationandpatientreportedoutcomesininpatientcareasystematicreview AT conradsusann interprofessionalcollaborationandpatientreportedoutcomesininpatientcareasystematicreview AT neugebaueredmundam interprofessionalcollaborationandpatientreportedoutcomesininpatientcareasystematicreview AT pietschbarbara interprofessionalcollaborationandpatientreportedoutcomesininpatientcareasystematicreview AT pieperdawid interprofessionalcollaborationandpatientreportedoutcomesininpatientcareasystematicreview |