Background: Due to multimorbidity and geriatric problems, older people often require both psychosocial and medical care. Collaboration between medical and social professionals is a prerequisite to deliver high-quality care for community-living older people. Effective, safe, and person-centered care relies on skilled interprofessional collaboration and practice. Little is known about interprofessional education to increase interprofessional collaboration in practice (IPCP) in the context of community care for older people. This study examines the feasibility of the implementation of an IPCP program in three community districts and determines its potential to increase interprofessional collaboration between primary healthcare professionals caring for older people. Method: A feasibility study was conducted to determine the acceptability and feasibility of data collection and analysis regarding interprofessional collaboration in network development. A questionnaire was used to measure the learning experience and the acquisition of knowledge and skills regarding the program. Network development was assessed by distributing a social network survey among professionals attending the program as well as professionals not attending the program at baseline and 5.5 months after. Network development was determined by calculating the number, reciprocity, value, and diversity of contacts between professionals using social network analysis. Results: The IPCP program was found to be instructive and the knowledge and skills gained were applicable in practice. Social network analysis was feasible to conduct and revealed a spill-over effect regarding network development. Program participants, as well as non-program participants, had larger, more reciprocal, and more diverse interprofessional networks than they did before the program. Conclusions: This study showed the feasibility of implementing an IPCP program in terms of acceptability, feasibility of data collection, and social network analysis to measure network development, and indicated potential to increase interprofessional collaboration between primary healthcare professionals. Both program participants and non-program participants developed a larger, more collaborative, and diverse interprofessional network.
Abstract: The typical structure of the healthcare sector involves (specialist) intertwined practices co-occurring in formal or informal networks. These practices must answer to the concerns and needs of all related stakeholders. Multimorbidity and the need to share knowledge for scientific development are among the driving factors for collaboration in healthcare. To establish and keep up a permanent collaborative link, it takes effort and understanding of the network characteristics that must be governed. It is not hard to find practices of Network Governance (NG) in a variety of industries. Still, there is a lack of insight in this subject, including knowledge on how to establish and maintain an effective healthcare network. Consequently, this study's research question is: How is network governance organized in the healthcare sector? A systematic literature study was performed to select 80 NG articles. Based on these publications the characteristics of NG are made explicit. The findings demonstrate that combinations of governance style (relational versus contractual governance) and governance structure (lead versus shared governance) lead to different network dynamics. Furthermore, the results show that in order to comprehend how networks in the healthcare sector emerge and can be regulated, it is vital to understand the current network type. Additionally, it informs us of the governing factors. Zie https://www.hbo-kennisbank.nl/details/sharekit_han:oai:surfsharekit.nl:e4f8fa3a-4af8-42ef-b2dd-c86d77b4cec6
MULTIFILE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21–31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15–21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47–56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9–12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13–18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys’ methods and reporting needs improvement.
MULTIFILE
