ArticlePloS one2025
A scoping review of innovations that promote interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in primary care for older adults living with age-related chronic disease in rural areas.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAn aging population and associated multi-morbid chronic diseases (CDs) require comprehensive health care across multiple disciplines. Literature suggests interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in primary care is effective for CD models of care. However, IPC requires innovative implementation, particularly in rural and remote areas where access to health care services and providers is often limited. Our main objective was to identify and synthesize the available research evidence on innovations that promote IPC in primary care for older rural adults with CD, identify gaps in the literature, and provide recommendations for future research.
methodsComprehensive and systematic searches were conducted across four scientific databases for peer-reviewed, original research published in English since 1990, resulting in 9,343 records. Following elimination of duplicates, screening, and evaluation, 38 studies were included for synthesis. All studies were described and illustrated by frequency distribution, and findings were grouped thematically.
resultsMost innovations involved case management and focused on diabetes (n = 15), dementia (n = 12), and hypertension (n = 10). Rural challenges were more prevalent than benefits and mainly involved limited services and resources, while strengths were mainly related to close-knit connections and familiarity with one another. Three main themes regarding benefits of the innovations were: 1) enhanced availability/accessibility, 2) earlier detection/management/support, and 3) improved care. Subthemes included: 2a) education/support, 2b) CD or risk factor outcomes, 3a) care continuity, and 3b) care coordination. Five main gaps in the literature included few studies with age-related CDs other than diabetes, dementia, and hypertension; conducted outside of United States and Canada; randomized controlled trial (RCT) and longitudinal studies; that involved virtual or technology-assisted innovations; and that considered sex and gender in the analysis.
conclusionsSeveral main areas were highlighted including rural strengths and challenges that impacted the innovations, key innovation benefits, and gaps in the literature. Recommendations for future research were made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.