Based on empirical research about teamwork in human service organizations in Sweden, the concept of collaborative health (CH) encapsulates the physical, psychological and social health resources the individual uses in teamwork; resources which at the same time are influenced by the teamwork. My argument built on empirical research leading up to identifying and defining the core concept in this article, is that teamwork affects team members' health and this in turn affects the teamwork and its outcome. In this paper collaborative health is viewed from a social constructionism perspective and discussed in relation to earlier concepts developed in social psychology and working life research, including psychosocial stress and burnout. The paper also introduces the concept of functional synergy, which in this context is defined as the simultaneous presence of sharp goal-orientation and synergy in teamwork. The need for a holistic team theory is emphasized as a tool in research on teamwork. Such a theory relies on identifying sound and illuminating constituent concepts. I suggest that collaborative health could be a useful concept for better understanding the complex collaborative and co-operative teamwork of human service organizations of today.
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -There is a tendency in team research to employ concepts of stepwise models, reaching from the primitive to the excellent, to suggest that a higher level of evolution is better than the basic and simple. This tendency includes typologies of teams. This article aims to question the relevance of this view. Design/methodology/approach -Data were collected in three steps. In the first step, articles and books analyzing teams and teamwork from stepwise analytical models were collected. In the second step the collected data were classified into different themes. Each stepwise model was classified into one essential denomination. This classification resulted in eight themes. In the third step each theme was analyzed, which led to the fusion of some of the themes. Findings -The conclusion is that a synchronous, complementary or mature team is not necessarily optimal. Contrary to this, a differentiated, sequential or multi team approach can be optimal for some purposes. Team research needs to establish a more open, inductive and critical attitude than at present. Originality/value -The paper highlights the need to observe and use team theories in a balanced and critical way.
Background Globally, interprofessional teamwork is described as a key method to promote health and prevent illness in children, namely, to achieve the goals of Child Healthcare Services (CHS). However, how teamwork should be designed within CHS to achieve the goals is unclear. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ perceptions about 1) taking part in interprofessional teamwork, 2) team characteristics, and 3) whether the perceptions were related to professional affiliation or workplace. Methods A national cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web-based study-specific questionnaire sent to all accessible nurses, physicians, and psychologists in Swedish CHS (n = 3552). The response rate was 31.5%. To identify possible associations, logistic regressions were conducted. Results Almost all respondents, 1096/1119 (97.9%), reported taking part in some type of interprofessional teamwork within the Swedish CHS. Among those, the most common was team-based visits (82.2%). It was perceived that performing team-based visits resulted in fulfilled goals, expertise exceeding individual team members’ competences, provision of high-quality care, and meeting children’s and families’ needs, to a greater extent, than if not performing team-based visits. Correspondingly, working as a team in parental groups was perceived as resulting in fulfilled goals, meeting the needs of children and their families, and continuity within the team to a greater extent than if not working together in a team. Professional affiliation was associated with different perceptions and types of teamwork. Family Centers were positively associated with all types of teamwork as well as continuity within the team. Conclusions Healthcare professionals’ perceptions about team characteristics were associated with professional affiliation, workplace, and type of teamwork (defined as team activities) within the CHS. Professionals within Swedish CHS, taking part in team-based visits and in interprofessional teamwork in parental groups, perceived that the team fulfilled its goals and met the needs of children and families to a greater extent than professionals not taking part in these types of teamwork. Professionals at Family Centers were more likely to work in teams in different ways. Knowledge about interprofessional teamwork for individuals and groups in Swedish CHS might also be valuable in other healthcare settings, dealing with complex needs.
Previous work has identified a lack of focused research in the field of team working in university continuing education (UCE). However, teamwork could be seen as self-evident in UCE, in part because UCE is of interest to employees, employers, universities and society. The aim of this study is to describe teamwork in UCE at three universities in the UK. The main research question asks: ‘How can the organisation of UCE be described as “teamwork”?’ A case study strategy is applied for two reasons: first, this is an empirical study involving the examination of objects in their natural environment; and second, it describes a limited but complex situation entailing many relevant factors and hence multiple sources of information. There is a built-in expectation of divergence across cases, since the cases are selected to expose and analyse variation. The chosen research methods are a document study and an interview, based on the nature of the object in question, the research question being raised and the descriptive purpose of the study. The methodological frame of reference used in this study, the ‘Organisational Context’, deals with conditions as prerequisites, team processes, results of teamwork and feedback. The model is reciprocal and basic to the contextual analysis. It has been used in earlier work by Sandberg (e.g., 1997b), and could be discussed in terms of the ‘ecological’ frame of reference (Sundstrom et al, 1990). The result shows that teamwork is present in many cases in UCE, but many common conditions function as obstacles to teamwork. For example, in many teams members are not permanent, furthermore, the academic system rewards individual achievement more than teamwork. The three cases in the study have significant similarities. The discussion points out that the actors in UCE have different perspectives beyond a common UCE-perspective. The difficulty in establishing the genuine teamwork necessary in UCE could be viewed as rooted in universities not having been originally created to meet the expectations of lifelong learning and continuing education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.