Nine keys for successful interprofessional collaboration Based on observing facilitators and barriers during different types of treatment meetings: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION: The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity requires effective collaboration between health professionals. Both interprofessional (IP) and multidisciplinary (MD) collaboration can be used for this purpose. IP collaboration refers to professionals working together toward a common patient-centred goal. In contrast, MD collaboration involves health professionals advocating for their own specialty, which may result in different disease-centred goals for the same patient. This study aims to evaluate and compare these two types of collaboration and develop recommendations for successful collaboration for patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: This qualitative study employed a rapid ethnographic non-participatory approach. We observed IP and MD treatment meetings using video and audio recordings to identify factors that might influence collaboration between health professionals. Data were analysed iteratively by multiple researchers using a thematic and conventional content analysis. RESULTS: There were clear differences between the observed meetings. The IP meetings had a roundtable setting, designated chair, discussions around a common patient-centred goal, active participants, and a relaxed atmosphere that facilitated interprofessional learning. Conversely, the MD meetings had a theatre design, disease-centred discussion, more passive participants, and a less relaxed atmosphere with fewer opportunities for learning. Five participants attended both settings. These participants were more actively engaged and contributed more to interprofessional learning in the IP meetings than in the MD meetings. CONCLUSION: This study showed multiple factors that may influence collaboration and participants' behaviour, particularly regarding active participation, learning, and patient-centred care. These factors were translated into nine keys for optimizing collaboration, which could support improvement in collaborative practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-07-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350554
Primary Topic
Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Nine keys for successful interprofessional collaboration Based on observing facilitators and barriers during different types of treatment meetings: A qualitative study

Šimon Gans, Natasja Looman, Carolina J. P. W. Keijsers, Marjolein H. J. van de Pol et al.
PLoS ONE
Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
article

Nine keys for successful interprofessional collaboration Based on observing facilitators and barriers during different types of treatment meetings: A qualitative study

Šimon Gans, Natasja Looman, Carolina J. P. W. Keijsers, Marjolein H. J. van de Pol, Renee C. M. A. Raijmann, Babette C van der Zwaard, Marielle H. Emmelot-Vonk, Huiberdina L. Koek, Meike F. Huijbers
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity requires effective collaboration between health professionals. Both interprofessional (IP) and multidisciplinary (MD) collaboration can be used for this purpose. IP collaboration refers to professionals working together toward a common patient-centred goal. In contrast, MD collaboration involves health professionals advocating for their own specialty, which may result in different disease-centred goals for the same patient. This study aims to evaluate and compare these two types of collaboration and develop recommendations for successful collaboration for patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: This qualitative study employed a rapid ethnographic non-participatory approach. We observed IP and MD treatment meetings using video and audio recordings to identify factors that might influence collaboration between health professionals. Data were analysed iteratively by multiple researchers using a thematic and conventional content analysis. RESULTS: There were clear differences between the observed meetings. The IP meetings had a roundtable setting, designated chair, discussions around a common patient-centred goal, active participants, and a relaxed atmosphere that facilitated interprofessional learning. Conversely, the MD meetings had a theatre design, disease-centred discussion, more passive participants, and a less relaxed atmosphere with fewer opportunities for learning. Five participants attended both settings. These participants were more actively engaged and contributed more to interprofessional learning in the IP meetings than in the MD meetings. CONCLUSION: This study showed multiple factors that may influence collaboration and participants' behaviour, particularly regarding active participation, learning, and patient-centred care. These factors were translated into nine keys for optimizing collaboration, which could support improvement in collaborative practice.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(7)
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.