Strategies of Collaboration between General Practitioners and Psychiatrists: A Survey of Practitioners' Opinions and Characteristics

Lucena, Ricardo; Lesage, Alain; Elie, Robert; Lamontagne, Yves; Corbière, Marc

doi:10.1177/070674370204700806

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This principle could be used to compare different network structures and how they relate to research productivity. Questionnaires have been developed to determine what is and what is not acceptable within inter-group collaboration (Lucena et al, 2002) and Provan provided an example of how to measure the effectiveness of a network using clinical outcomes (Provan & Milward, 1995;Provan & Sebastian, 1998). These methods provide tools that could be employed by future studies of mental health networks where establishing the effectiveness of the network is critical.…”

Section: Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

Practice‐based Evidence as a Complement to Evidence‐based Practice: From Dichotomy to Chiasmus

Barkham

Margison²

2007

Handbook of Evidence‐based Psychotherapies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

Practice‐based Evidence as a Complement to Evidence‐based Practice: From Dichotomy to Chiasmus

Barkham

Margison²

2007

Handbook of Evidence‐based Psychotherapies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lucena et al, 2002 Ways to improve collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and psychiatrists in primary care.…”

Section: Practice Coordinators In Upper Peninsula Primarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collaboration was the most researched area with nine studies. However, many of the studies simply proposed models to guide thinking about collaboration (Kreiner & Schultz, 1993;Kraut et al, 1987), were of poor methodological quality (Lohfeld & Brazil, 2000), or it was difficult to relate their findings on collaboration to implications for practice (Harris & Harris, 2001;Huxham & Vangen, 2000;Lucena, Lesage, Elie, Lamontagne & Corbiere, 2002). Bozeman et al (1999) presented some predictable guidelines for effective co-author behaviour (unselfishness, dependability and consideration) that can be applied to inter-organisational research networks.…”

Section: Process Of the Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to develop inter-organisational research networks in mental health: A systematic review

Ruddy

Audin

Barkham

2005

Journal of Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Inter-organizational mental health research networks are increasingly encouraged by the Department of Health although the literature suggests that there is little evidence about what leads to effectiveness of these networks. Method: For the first phase of the project we have constructed a framework of relevant factors in the structure, process and outcome of inter-organizational research networks. We then used this to conduct a systematic review to summarize the evidence for best practice in these areas of research networks. Computerized databases were searched for studies of practice research networks. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included after assessment by two reviewers. Research outcomes, collaboration and recruitment of participants were the most represented areas. No high quality studies were found for any areas. Conclusions: Implications for development of mental health research networks and further research in terms of the structure, process and outcomes of networks are presented. This review highlights the need for high quality studies to determine best practice for inter-organizational research networks. Declaration of interest: None.

show abstract

“…An exploratory study conducted in Quebec among a representative sample of general practitioners and psychiatrists in Montreal identified three strategies to promote collaboration between the two groups of physicians [7]: 1-Improving communication, 2-Broadening access to responding psychiatrists and, 3-Providing Continuing Medical Education (CME) in psychiatry to general practitioners. This last strategy received enthusiastic support by general practitioners and psychiatrists [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intervisions Cliniques Continuing Medical Education Program: A Forum for Exchange and Mutual Knowledge Development between General Practitioners and Psychiatrists

Briand¹

2017

J Fam Med Dis Prev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This article presents the Intervisions cliniques program, a Continuing Medical Education (CME) initiative for psychiatrists and general practitioners which uses case discussion to foster the acquisition of mental health care knowledge. Method:This project is a case study, using qualitative methods. An operational model of Intervisions Cliniques was drawn for analysis. Data mainly come from the program-related literature, direct observation and interviews with 9 key actors, assembled in 2 groups of promoters and participants of the program. Findings:The findings help to define the context and vision in which the Intervisions cliniques program was set up and implemented, to identify the perceived benefits and disappointments with regard to the program. Set up in the Canadian public managed care system and university-affiliated hospital, the Intervisions cliniques program helps to create lines of communication and privileged exchanges between general practitioners and psychiatrists as well as to foster mutual knowledge and a crosscutting and interactive view within a shared clinical territory. Several benefits noted by the participants and the organizing committee demonstrate the importance and multimodal effects of this type of initiative.The case-discussion format used as a CME method meets the training needs of general practitioners and is widely appreciated. However, the pressing needs expressed by the general practitioners with regard to improving shared mental health care still pose many challenges. Conclusions:Making the link with the duties of responding psychiatrists, who are now funded in Québec, seems to be part of the solution. Maintaining and disseminating the Intervisions Cliniques program will require provincial-wide system implementation strategies to train psychiatrist, support them and regional managers to monitor the quality of this innovative practice within a public managed care system. Clinical implications• In the context of Continuing Medical Education (CME), case discussions are valued because they help to address the full complexity of clinical situations.• In the development of shared mental health care, direct contacts between general practitioners and psychiatrists are an optimal way to foster mutual knowledge and a crosscutting and interactive view within a shared clinical territory.• The Intervisions cliniques program contributes to shared mental health care and is a CME strategy that should be reproduced. ORIGINAL RESEARCH

show abstract

Strategies of Collaboration between General Practitioners and Psychiatrists: A Survey of Practitioners' Opinions and Characteristics

Cited by 19 publications

References 40 publications

Practice‐based Evidence as a Complement to Evidence‐based Practice: From Dichotomy to Chiasmus

Practice‐based Evidence as a Complement to Evidence‐based Practice: From Dichotomy to Chiasmus

How to develop inter-organisational research networks in mental health: A systematic review

The Intervisions Cliniques Continuing Medical Education Program: A Forum for Exchange and Mutual Knowledge Development between General Practitioners and Psychiatrists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About