ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2026
Concept analysis of knowledge sharing in multidisciplinary surgical teams: Implications for interprofessional education and professional development.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Understanding and clarifying key concepts such as "knowledge sharing" is essential for advancing interprofessional collaboration and education in healthcare. This study aimed to analyze the concept of knowledge sharing in multidisciplinary surgical teams. Methods: This is a qualitative study performed using Schwartz-Barcott and Kim's (2000) hybrid model of concept analysis, implemented in three stages: 1) theoretical, 2) fieldwork, and 3) final analysis. In the theoretical phase, a comprehensive literature review was analyzed through inductive content analysis. Along the fieldwork phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with surgical team members and analyzed deductively following Elo and Kyngäs' approach. In the final phase, the findings from both stages were integrated to present a comprehensive definition of knowledge sharing. Results: The final analysis phase indicated five main categories of attributes: 1) diversity of shared knowledge, 2) interactive, voluntary and multi-directional exchange, 3) purposeful process, 4) varied sharing levels, and 5) diverse sharing methods. Further, two main categories of antecedents were identified: 1) individual and knowledge factors, and 2) organizational factors. Ultimately, the analysis highlighted two main categories of consequences: 1) individual, team and therapeutic consequences, and 2) organizational consequences. Conclusion: In the present study, knowledge sharing was defined as an interactive, purposeful, and voluntary process occurring at various interpersonal and organizational levels (vertical and horizontal) through professional behaviors. It involves reciprocal (occasionally unilateral) exchange of tacit/explicit knowledge via formal, informal, and web-based channels. Since the core characteristics of knowledge sharing have remained largely consistent between the theoretical and fieldwork phases, this definition can be applied to other clinical environments.
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.