Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings. An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual). Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals’ skills and contribution. The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings. An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (–), mixed results (?) or no change (0). 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types. This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

Background: Patient experience surveys are increasingly conducted in cancer care as they provide important results to consider in future development of cancer care and health policymaking. These surveys usually include closed-ended questions (patient-reported experience measures (PREMs)) and space for free-text comments, but published results are mostly based on PREMs. We aimed to identify the underlying themes of patients’ experiences as shared in their own words in the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) survey and compare these themes with those assessed with PREMs to investigate how the textual analysis of free-text comments contributes to the understanding of patients’ experiences of care. Methods: SCAPE is a multicenter cross-sectional survey that was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019 in French-speaking parts of Switzerland. Patients were invited to rate their care in 65 closed-ended questions (PREMs) and to add free-text comments regarding their cancer-related experiences at the end of the survey. We conducted computer-assisted textual analysis using the IRaMuTeQ software on the comments provided by 31% (n = 844) of SCAPE survey respondents (n = 2755). Results: We identified five main thematic classes, two of which consisting of a detailed description of ‘cancer care pathways’. The remaining three classes were related to ‘medical care’, ‘gratitude and praise’, and the way patients lived with cancer (‘cancer and me’). Further analysis of this last class showed that patients’ comments related to the following themes: ‘initial shock’, ‘loneliness’, ‘understanding and acceptance’, ‘cancer repercussions’, and ‘information and communication’. While closed-ended questions related mainly to factual aspects of experiences of care, free-text comments related primarily to the personal and emotional experiences and consequences of having cancer and receiving care. Conclusions: A computer-assisted textual analysis of free-text in our patient survey allowed a time-efficient classification of free-text data that provided insights on the personal experience of living with cancer and additional information on patient experiences that had not been collected with the closed-ended questions, underlining the importance of offering space for comments. Such results can be useful to inform questionnaire development, provide feedback to professional teams, and guide patient-centered initiatives to improve the quality and safety of cancer care.

Objectives: Women are underrepresented in most HIV clinical trials in Western countries, but their participation remains crucial as the lack of information on sex‐ and gender‐specific effects may hinder the safety and efficacy of antiretroviral treatments. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of women's participation in HIV clinical trials in Switzerland.Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews among 20 women with HIV to explore factors associated with non‐participation in clinical trials. The interviewer presented to participants a clinical trial's description and discussed it with them. Lexicometric analysis on transcribed interviews identified three themes and eight sub‐themes related to the pros and cons of participation in HIV clinical trials.Results: Participants evoked mainly decision‐making drivers, concerns for women living with HIV and treatment side‐effects. They highlighted the need for extensive information provided by trusted healthcare professionals on the research process as central to the decision to enrol in HIV clinical trials. Familial responsibilities were clearly identified as barriers to their participation, but not pregnancy. Additional preoccupations were other health concerns and comorbidities and the consequences of stopping ongoing antiretroviral treatments.Conclusions: To overcome the barriers to the participation of women living with HIV in clinical research in Western countries, healthcare professionals and researchers should increase women's research literacy by involving them in the study design and by tailoring clinical trials to their social roles and health concerns. Trust in professionals is a facilitator of enrolment of women living with HIV that should be maintained.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses were exposed to many stressors, which may have been associated with some mental health problems. However, most of the studies carried out on nurses’ quality of life and workplace wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic took a pathogenic approach. Given that current scientific knowledge in this field presented too many gaps to properly inform preventive and therapeutic action, the aim of this study was to explore whether protective factors (resilience, perceived social support, and professional identification) and stressors (perceived stress and psychosocial risks in the workplace) influenced the quality of life and workplace wellbeing perceived by Portuguese nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data for this cross-sectional study was collected through online self-administered questionnaires. Linear regression models were used to analyze the relationships between variables. Results showed that perceived stress, resilience and job satisfaction were associated with quality of life and workplace wellbeing among Portuguese nurses. The study’s findings could serve to inform health policy and should draw the attention of nursing managers to the needs and difficulties reported by nurses, to the importance of providing them with emotional support, and to the relevance of promoting a good work environment.

In France, nurses work either in hospitals and care institutions or in private practice, following physicians’ prescriptions and taking care of patients at their homes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these populations of nurses were exposed to numerous sources of stress. The main objective of the present study was to identify the protective factors they mobilized to face the crisis and how these factors contributed to sustaining their quality of life (QoL). A cross-sectional study was conducted to answer these questions. Overall, 9898 French nurses participated in the study, providing demographic information and filling out QoL (WHOQOL-BREF), perceived stress (PSS-14), resilience (CD-RISC), social support (MSPSS), and coping style (BRIEF-COPE) questionnaires. The results revealed very few differences between the two groups of nurses, which is surprising given the drastically different contexts in which they practice. Social support and two coping strategies (positive reframing and acceptance) were associated with a high QoL, whereas perceived stress and four coping strategies (denial, blaming self, substance use, and behavioral disengagement) were associated with poor QoL. In the light of these results, we recommended promoting social support and coping strategies to help nurses cope during the pandemic.