The use of systems and organizational theories in the interprofessional field: findings from a scoping review

  • Esther Suter
  • , Joanne Goldman
  • , Tina Martimianakis
  • , Carole Chatalalsingh
  • , Dale J DeMatteo
  • , Scott Reeves

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    Authors have commented on the limited use of theory in the interprofessional field and its critical importance to advancing the work in this field. While social psychological and educational theories in the interprofessional field are increasingly popular, the contribution of organizational and systems theories is less well understood. This paper presents a subset of the findings (those focused on organizational/systems approaches) from a broader scoping review of theories in the organizational and educational literature aimed to guide interprofessional education and practice. A detailed search strategy was used to identify relevant theories. In total, we found 17 organizational and systems theories. Nine of the theories had been previously employed in the interprofessional field and eight had potential to do so. These theories focus on interactions between different components of organizations which can impact collaboration and practice change. Given the primarily educational focus of the current research, this paper offers new insight into theories to support the design and implementation of interprofessional education and practice within health care environments. The use of these theories would strengthen the growing evidence base for both interprofessional education and practice--a common need for its varied stakeholders.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)57-64
    JournalJournal of Interprofessional Care
    Volume27
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jan 2013

    Keywords

    • Health services research

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'The use of systems and organizational theories in the interprofessional field: findings from a scoping review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this