BackgroundInterprofessional Primary Care Teams (IPCTs) have been shown to benefit health systems and patients, particularly those patients with complex care needs. The literature suggests a wide range of factors that may influence collaboration in IPCTs, however the evidence base is unclear for many of these factors. To target improvement efforts, we identify studies that demonstrate an association between suggested factors and collaborative processes in IPCTs.MethodsA systematic review of 25 years of peer-review literature was conducted to identify studies that test associations between policy, organizational, care team and individual factors, and collaboration in IPCTs. We searched Medline, ProQuest subject, ProQuest abstract, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, and Embase electronic databases between January 1990 to June 2015 and hand-searched reference lists of identified articles.ResultsThe electronic searches identified 1421 articles, nine of which met inclusion criteria.Eighteen factors were significantly associated with collaboration in at least one article.We present the findings within a proposed conceptual model of interrelated ‘gears’. The model offers a taxonomy of factors that policy makers (macro gear), organizational managers (meso gear), care teams (micro gear) and health professionals (individual gear) can adjust to improve interprofessional collaboration in IPC teams. Thirteen of the eighteen identified factors were within the micro gear, or team level of decision-making. These pertained to formal processes such as quality audits and group problem-solving; social processes such as open communication and supportive colleagues; team attitudes such as feeling part of the team; and team structure such as team size and having a collaboration champion or facilitator. Fewer policy (eg governance), organizational (eg information systems, organizational culture) or individual (eg belief in interprofessional collaboration care and personal flexibility) level factors were identified.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that individual IPCTs have opportunities to improve collaboration regardless of the organizational or policy context within which they operate. Evidence supports the importance of having a team vision and shared goals, formal quality processes, information systems, and professionals feeling part of the team. Few studies assessed associations between collaboration and macro and meso factors, or between factors across levels, which are priorities for future research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0492-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

‘Codesign’ and associated terms such as ‘coproduction’ or ‘patient engagement’, are increasingly common in the health research literature, due to an increased emphasis on the importance of ensuring that research related to service/systems development is meaningful to end-users.  However, there continues to be a lack of clarity regarding the key principles and practices of codesign, and wide variation in the extent to which service users are meaningfully engaged in the process. These issues are particularly acute when end-users include populations who have significant health and healthcare disparities that are linked to a range of intersecting vulnerabilities (eg, poverty, language barriers, age, disability, minority status, stigmatised conditions).  The purpose of this paper is to prompt critical reflection on the nature of codesign research with vulnerable populations, including key issues to consider in the initial planning phases, the implementation process, and final outputs.  Risks and tensions will be identified in each phase of the process, followed by a tool to foster reflexivity in codesign processes to address these issues.

Background Codesign has the potential to transform health and other public services. To avoid unintentionally reinforcing existing inequities, better understanding is needed of how to facilitate involvement of vulnerable populations in acceptable, ethical and effective codesign. Objective To explore citizens’ involvement in codesigning public services for vulnerable groups, identify challenges and suggest improvements. Design A modified case study approach. Pattern matching was used to compare reported challenges with a priori theoretical propositions. Setting and participants A two‐day international symposium involved 28 practitioners, academics and service users from seven countries to reflect on challenges and to codesign improved processes for involving vulnerable populations. Intervention studied Eight case studies working with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations in three countries. Results We identified five shared challenges to meaningful, sustained participation of vulnerable populations: engagement; power differentials; health concerns; funding; and other economic/social circumstances. In response, a focus on relationships and flexibility is essential. We encourage codesign projects to enact a set of principles or heuristics rather than following pre‐specified steps. We identify a set of principles and tactics, relating to challenges outlined in our case studies, which may help in codesigning public services with vulnerable populations. Discussion and conclusions Codesign facilitators must consider how meaningful engagement will be achieved and how power differentials will be managed when working with services for vulnerable populations. The need for flexibility and responsiveness to service user needs may challenge expectations about timelines and outcomes. User‐centred evaluations of codesigned public services are needed.

BackgroundAlthough high quality mental health care for children and youth is a goal of many health systems, little is known about the dimensions of quality mental health care from users’ perspectives. We engaged young people, caregivers and service providers to share experiences, which shed light on quality dimensions for youth mental health care.MethodsUsing experience‐based co‐design, we collected qualitative data from young people aged 16‐24 with a mental disorder (n = 19), identified caregivers (n = 12) and service providers (n = 14) about their experiences with respect to youth mental health services. Experience data were collected using multiple approaches including interviews, a suite of online and smartphone applications (n = 22), and a co‐design event (n = 16) and analysed to extract touch points. These touch points were used to prioritize and co‐design a user‐driven prototype of a questionnaire to provide feedback to service providers.FindingsYoung people, caregiver and service provider reports of service experiences were used to identify aspects of care quality at eight mental health service contact points: Access to mental health care; Transfer to/from hospital; Intake into hospital; Services provided; Assessment and treatment; Treatment environment; and Caregiver involvement in care. In some cases, low quality care was harmful to users and their caregivers. Young people co‐designed a prototype of a user‐driven feedback questionnaire to improve quality of service experiences that was supported by service providers and caregivers at the co‐design event.ConclusionBy using EBCD to capture in‐depth data regarding experiences of young people, their caregivers and service providers, study participants have begun to establish a baseline for acceptable quality of mental health care for young people.

Background The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts. Methods We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature. Results A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components. Conclusions This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.