Review Article

Characteristics, barriers and facilitators of initiatives to develop interprofessional collaboration in rural and remote primary healthcare facilities: a scoping review

AUTHORS

name here
Dominique Perron1
MSc

name here
Karrie Parent2
BSc

name here
Isabelle Gaboury3
PhD, Professor

name here
Dave A Bergeron4
RN, PhD, Associate Professor *

AFFILIATIONS

1 Interdisciplinary Doctorate in Health and Society, Faculty of Human Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal, 405 rue Sainte-Catherine Est, Montréal, Québec H2L 2C4, Canada; Centre de recherche du CISSS Chaudière-Appalaches, 143 rue Wolfe, Lévis, Québec G6V 3Z1, Canada; and Collectif de recherche sur la santé en région (CoRSeR), Université du Québec à Rimouski, 300 Allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, Québec G5L 3A1, Canada

2 Faculty of Arts and Science, Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada

3 Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, Québec J4K 0A8, Canada

4 Centre de recherche du CISSS Chaudière-Appalaches, 143 rue Wolfe, Lévis, Québec G6V 3Z1, Canada; Collectif de recherche sur la santé en région (CoRSeR), Université du Québec à Rimouski, 300 Allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, Québec G5L 3A1, Canada; Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, Québec J4K 0A8, Canada; and Department of Health Sciences, Université du Québec à Rimouski, 300 Allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, Québec G5L 3A1, Canada

ACCEPTED: 3 September 2022


early abstract:

Introduction: Despite strong evidence supporting interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and the documented need for collaborative practice in primary health care (PHC), initiatives to promote IPC in rural and remote PHC facilities have not been extensively studied. The purpose of this paper was to map interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional practice (IPP) initiatives implemented to promote IPC in rural and remote PHC facilities and identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted. After two reviewers filtered titles and abstracts, 94 retained articles were subsequently screened. Finally, 23 articles were selected and analyzed using a directed content analysis approach in NVivo 12.
Results: Only 10 papers focused on the implementation of initiatives to improve IPC, while the majority reported barriers and facilitators. The most common IPE initiatives were workshops, courses, discussion groups and simulations, while IPP initiatives fell into two main categories: clinical or technological tools. Limited human resources, understanding of roles, and knowledge of context as well as traditional roles were identified as barriers. Team size, past experience and relationships, connection to community, flexibility and openness, and financial support were facilitators to developing IPC.
Conclusion: Deployment of IPC in rural and remote PHC facilities is critical given the various challenges faced in these clinical settings. The facilitators identified in this literature review are specific to rural and remote clinical settings and provide hope that new initiatives more tailored to rural and remote settings will be implemented and evaluated in the future to improve IPC and care delivery.