Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings.Methods: An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual).Results: Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution. Conclusions:The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings.Methods: An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0).Results: 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional-and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types. Conclusions:This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

COVID-19 caused major changes in private and public arenas. Individuals were forced to reorganise their daily lives in response to the restrictive measures imposed by governments. The redistribution of gender roles and the responsibility for care provides an example of the reconfigurations that took place during the pandemic. This article sheds light on the implications of the pandemic for gender inequalities by exploring how care work was reconfigured as women and men sought to protect family members and navigated risks of infection. The study is based on qualitative data – interviews and observations – gathered in an interdisciplinary medical anthropology project. In the article, the authors focus on seven cases selected from a larger corpus to illustrate how reconfigurations of the gendered division of care work within families shifted during the pandemic as men assumed greater moral responsibility for safeguarding family members, without infringing the norms of masculinity. The first part of the article explores the intensification of care activities during lockdown for women living in the Canton de Vaud in Switzerland. The second part centres on the moral responsibility and duty for women and men to protect family members from viral exposure. The results from the study confirm not only that most care activities continued to be delegated to female family members, but also that men’s roles evolved. While their safeguarding role can be understood as a new form of caring for men, the findings suggest that it was essentially crisis specific and did not challenge masculinity norms. The extent to which this reconfiguration of gender roles might have a longer-term impact on gender inequalities remains to be seen. Meanwhile, these observations could have important implications for policies aimed at mitigating the medium and long-term effects of the pandemic on gender inequality.

Objective We aimed to identify the main barriers to integrated care (IC) as reported by healthcare stakeholders from various linguistic regions and health system specificities, according to their reality of practice. Methods Information was gathered through an open‐ended question from a national survey conducted in Switzerland in 2019. Responses were analysed qualitatively with the IRaMuTeQ software. Results Answers from 410 respondents were obtained. Respondents reported barriers at two levels: the system and professional level. Threat to financial benefits, concerns for patient data sharing and tensions between quality of care and benefits for patients versus costs were mentioned at the professional level, in their activity and in patient care. At the system level, limitations at the political level due to federalism and the lack of support and training for professionals were important barriers, in addition to the lack of recognition and compensation for professionals and the fragmented functioning of the health care system. Conclusion Our study underlines the importance of implementing innovative funding strategies and reimbursement schemes, as well as political willingness to move towards IC. The alignment between federal policies and cantonal specificities also appears as necessary to achieve involvement of professionals, promote integration of services and coordination of professionals for continuous and efficient care.