Perceptions of interprofessional team collaboration among professionals working in the Occupational Health Service in Sweden

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
A. ‐. Mouazzen, K. Blomberg, M. Jaensson
{"title":"Perceptions of interprofessional team collaboration among professionals working in the Occupational Health Service in Sweden","authors":"A. ‐. Mouazzen, K. Blomberg, M. Jaensson","doi":"10.1093/joccuh/uiad009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among professionals in occupational health service is crucial when rendering a service to clients and customers. The aim of this study was to describe and compare perceptions relating to IPC among professionals working as occupational health (OH) providers in Sweden. Methods: This cross-sectional study with a descriptive and comparative design included 456 respondents representing different OH professions in Sweden. Data were collected using the Swedish short version of the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale adapted for OH (AITCS)-SII(OH), with its three subscales Partnership, Cooperation and Coordination, and were analysed and presented descriptively. Items and sum scores were dichotomized into inadequate and adequate and compared between sexes, workplaces, types of employment and professions. Results: According to the responses, items related to openness, honesty and trust were perceived as adequate among the respondents. The findings show that perceptions about IPC differed among the professions. The perception of IPC did also differ between different types of organizations. Conclusion: The result show diverse perceptions between professionals and organizations. The perception of IPC may be influenced by the professional’s education in occupational safety and health. Study findings may be used to support further development of IPC in the occupational health service for the best of the clients. To develop IPC in the best interests of both professionals and customers/clients, further studies need to be performed to gain a deeper understanding of IPC in the OH context.","PeriodicalId":16632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Health","volume":"26 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiad009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among professionals in occupational health service is crucial when rendering a service to clients and customers. The aim of this study was to describe and compare perceptions relating to IPC among professionals working as occupational health (OH) providers in Sweden. Methods: This cross-sectional study with a descriptive and comparative design included 456 respondents representing different OH professions in Sweden. Data were collected using the Swedish short version of the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale adapted for OH (AITCS)-SII(OH), with its three subscales Partnership, Cooperation and Coordination, and were analysed and presented descriptively. Items and sum scores were dichotomized into inadequate and adequate and compared between sexes, workplaces, types of employment and professions. Results: According to the responses, items related to openness, honesty and trust were perceived as adequate among the respondents. The findings show that perceptions about IPC differed among the professions. The perception of IPC did also differ between different types of organizations. Conclusion: The result show diverse perceptions between professionals and organizations. The perception of IPC may be influenced by the professional’s education in occupational safety and health. Study findings may be used to support further development of IPC in the occupational health service for the best of the clients. To develop IPC in the best interests of both professionals and customers/clients, further studies need to be performed to gain a deeper understanding of IPC in the OH context.
瑞典职业健康服务专业人员对跨专业团队合作的看法
目的:职业健康服务专业人员之间的跨专业合作(IPC)对于为客户和顾客提供服务至关重要。本研究旨在描述和比较瑞典职业健康(OH)服务提供者中专业人员对 IPC 的看法。 研究方法这项横断面研究采用描述性和比较性设计,包括 456 名代表瑞典不同职业健康服务提供者的受访者。数据采用瑞典语简版职业卫生跨专业团队协作评估量表(AITCS)-SII(OH)及其三个分量表 "伙伴关系"、"合作 "和 "协调 "进行收集,并以描述性方式进行分析和呈现。对项目和总分进行了二分法处理,分为不足和充分,并对不同性别、工作场所、就业类型和专业进行了比较。 结果根据答复,受访者认为与开放、诚实和信任有关的项目是充分的。调查结果表明,不同职业对 IPC 的看法有所不同。不同类型的组织对 IPC 的看法也不尽相同。 结论结果显示,专业人员和组织对 IPC 的认识存在差异。对 IPC 的看法可能受到专业人员在职业安全与健康方面所受教育的影响。研究结果可用于支持进一步发展职业健康服务中的 IPC,为客户提供最佳服务。为发展符合专业人员和客户/顾客最佳利益的 IPC,需要开展进一步研究,以深入了解职业安全与健康背景下的 IPC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Occupational Health
Journal of Occupational Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The scope of the journal is broad, covering toxicology, ergonomics, psychosocial factors and other relevant health issues of workers, with special emphasis on the current developments in occupational health. The JOH also accepts various methodologies that are relevant to investigation of occupational health risk factors and exposures, such as large-scale epidemiological studies, human studies employing biological techniques and fundamental experiments on animals, and also welcomes submissions concerning occupational health practices and related issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信