Objectives To describe and discuss key findings from a recent research project that challenge an increasingly prevalent theme, apparent in both family-centred care research and practice, of conceptualizing family-centred care as shifting care, care management, and advocacy responsibilities to families. The purpose of the research, from which these findings emerged, was to develop a conceptualization of family-centred care grounded in the experiences of families and direct health-care providers.Design Qualitative research methods, following the grounded theory tradition, were used to develop a conceptual framework that described the dimensions of the concept of family-centred care and their interrelationships, in the substantive area of children's developmental services. This article reports on and extends key findings from this grounded theory study, in light of current trends in the literature.Setting and participants The substantive area that served as the setting for the research was developmental services at a children's hospital in Alberta, Canada. Data was collected through focus groups and individual interviews with 37 parents of children diagnosed with a developmental problem and 16 frontline health-care providers.Findings Key findings from this research project do not support the current emphasis in family-centred care research and practice on conceptualizing family-centred care as the shifting of care, care management, and advocacy responsibilities to families. Rather, what emerged was that parents want to work truly collaboratively with health-care providers in making treatment decisions and on implementing a dynamic care plan that will work best for child and family.Discussion and conclusions A definition of collaboration is provided, and the nature of collaborative relationships described. Contributing factors to the difficulty in establishing true collaborative relationships between families and health-care professionals, where the respective roles to be played by health-care professionals and families are jointly determined, are discussed. In light of these findings we strongly advocate for the re-examination of current family-centred care policy and practice.

Students' declining science interest in middle school is often attributed to psychological factors like shifts of motivational values, decrease in self-efficacy, or doubts about the utility of schooling in general. This paper adds to accounts of the middle school science problem through an ethnographic, longitudinal case study of three diverse students' identity work from fourth-to sixth-grade school science. Classroom observations and interviews are used as primary data sources to examine: (1) the cultural and structural aspects of the fourth-and sixth-grade classrooms, including the celebrated subject positions, that enabled and constrained students' identity work as science learners; (2) the nature of students' identity work, including their positioning related to the celebrated subject positions within and across fourth-and sixthgrade science; and (3) the ways race, class, and gender figured into students' identity work and positioning. In fourth-grade, all experienced excellent science pedagogy and performed themselves as scientifically competent and engaged learners who recognized themselves and got recognized by others as scientific. By sixth-grade, their identity work in school science became dramatically less scientific. Celebrated subject positions did not demand scientific thinking or robust engagement in scientific practices and were heavily mediated by race, class, and gender. Our results highlight three insights related to the middle school problem: (1) when students' social identity work was leveraged in service of robust science learning, their affiliation increased; (2) academic success in school science did not equate to affiliation or deep engagement with science; and (3) race, class, and gender figured into students'successes in, threats to, and identity work related to becoming scientific. We end the article by providing a framework and questions that teachers, teacher educators, and researchers might use to design and evaluate the equity of science education learning spaces.

Healthcare and social services professionals are being called to engage in interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in order to provide efficient and effective care to clients and patients. As such, it is important to conduct research that contributes to evaluation of collaborative practice. A necessary component to any strong quantitative research methodology is the type of instruments used for data collection. However, identifying valid and reliable instruments to use in this area of research can be a daunting task. The purpose of this paper is to review the quantitative measures (i.e., surveys and questionnaires) described in the interprofessional literature. Twenty-three instruments were identified and analyzed for validity and reliability statistics, sample size, ease of access to items on measure, and applicability of measure to diverse professional populations. The two primary measures reviewed are the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (Parsell & Bligh, 1998 ) and the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (Luecht, Madsen, Taugher, & Petterson, 1990 ). Limited information existed for the remaining measures. Despite the number of measures available for assessing and evaluating IPE and IPC, most lack sufficient theoretical and psychometric development. Several issues that impact the development of sound measures are discussed and implications for future IPC are proposed.

ContextA key aim of reforms to primary health care (PHC) in many countries has been to enhance interprofessional teamwork. However, the impact of these changes on practitioners has not been well understood.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of reform policies and interventions that have aimed to create or enhance teamwork on professional communication relationships, roles, and work satisfaction in PHC practices.DesignCollaborative synthesis of 12 mixed methods studies.SettingPrimary care practices undergoing transformational change in three countries: Australia, Canada, and the USA, including three Canadian provinces (Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec).MethodsWe conducted a synthesis and secondary analysis of 12 qualitative and quantitative studies conducted by the authors in order to understand the impacts and how they were influenced by local context.ResultsThere was a diverse range of complex reforms seeking to foster interprofessional teamwork in the care of patients with chronic disease. The impact on communication and relationships between different professional groups, the roles of nursing and allied health services, and the expressed satisfaction of PHC providers with their work varied more within than between jurisdictions. These variations were associated with local contextual factors such as the size, power dynamics, leadership, and physical environment of the practice. Unintended consequences included deterioration of the work satisfaction of some team members and conflict between medical and nonmedical professional groups.ConclusionThe variation in impacts can be understood to have arisen from the complexity of interprofessional dynamics at the practice level. The same characteristic could have both positive and negative influence on different aspects (eg, larger practice may have less capacity for adoption but more capacity to support interprofessional practice). Thus, the impacts are not entirely predictable and need to be monitored, and so that interventions can be adapted at the local level.