Skip to main content
Download PDF

The impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: results from a rapid scoping review

BMC Primary Care volume 26, Article number: 25 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

High-performing primary care relies on effective interprofessional teams and provider payment arrangements. This study aims to examine the impact of provider remuneration mechanisms and intrinsic and extrinsic incentives in team-based primary care.

Methods

This rapid scoping review assessed various provider payment models and incentives in team-based primary care. Statistical tests were not applicable in this review.

Results

Fee-for-service models hindered team collaboration, while salaried and quality-based compensation models enhanced collaboration. Extrinsic incentives, such as pay-for-performance programs for physicians, showed mixed impacts on outcomes. Strong organizational cultures and leadership, resources, team meetings, training, clear protocols, and professional development opportunities facilitated teamwork. Intrinsic incentives like autonomy, mastery, and social purpose improved team performance and satisfaction.

Conclusions

This study underscores the importance of a holistic approach to designing interprofessional primary care teams. It highlights the need for implementing non-fee-for-service provider payment models and team-based pay-for-performance incentives. Investments in teams should include health human resources and leadership, training, guidelines, and professional development opportunities. Implementing a performance measurement framework for teams and regular public reporting can foster mastery. Continuous research and evaluation are crucial to optimizing teamwork and healthcare delivery in primary care settings.

Peer Review reports

Background

Globally, primary care (PC) systems are in crisis, with reports of shortages in the PC workforce and challenges with patient access [1,2,3]. The spread of interprofessional PC teams is recognized as one solution to the global crisis [1]. In Canada, several jurisdictions have introduced team-based models, which vary in their organizational structure, remuneration schemes, provider composition, governance mechanisms, enrolment of patients, and target population [4]. Interprofessional PC teams have a positive impact on patient health outcomes [5], patient satisfaction [6], reducing the number of hospitalizations, and emergency room visits - fostering cost-saving [7].

Interprofessional teams and funding and payment provider arrangements aligned with health system goals are key attributes of high-performing primary care (PC) systems [4, 8]. PC teams are a group of professionals from two or more disciplines that work interdependently to deliver patient care [9, 10]. Globally, several jurisdictions have embarked on the implementation and spread of PC teams [1]. Investments in team-based care have been made in Canada [11, 12], Brazil [13], Norway [14, 15], the United States [16, 17], Australia [18, 19], and New Zealand [20]. The organizational models vary in terms of team composition, populations served, funding and remuneration payment mechanisms and requirements for attachment [1, 21].

The evidence of impact on PC teams in Canada is also mixed and limited [22, 23], particularly in mature models such as in Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec [23, 24]. In Alberta, studies show that Primary Care Networks (PCNs) reduce emergency department visits while others demonstrate declines in care coordination and comprehensiveness [24,25,26,27,28]. In Quebec’s Family Medicine Groups (FMGs), the results are mixed with respect to impact on service use, equity, and access [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] and show no changes in chronic condition screening [37] or adherence to medication guidelines [38]. In Ontario, Family Health Teams (FHTs) have been shown to improve same-day access to care but show mixed results on the impact on emergency department visits and no impact on after-hours care or hospital admissions [39, 40].

Physician payment models refer to the various structures through which healthcare providers are compensated for their services [41]. A variety of physician payment models (fee-for-service (FFS), capitation, salary, blended payment) are used in PC teams [23]. A systematic review found salaried payment is associated with the lower use of tests, number of procedures and patients per doctor, and referrals but longer consultations and more preventive care compared with FFS [42]. However, the impact of various remuneration models on team collaboration or effectiveness is unknown. Extrinsic incentives provided by organizations and intrinsic incentives driven from within an individual have been demonstrated to improve team performance [23, 43,44,45,46]. However, their impact has not been studied in PC [23].

Remuneration models have been thought to impact team functioning [47] and the delivery of care within interprofessional PC teams [48]. For example, under an FFS model, physicians are reimbursed based on the volume of services rendered. This can impact team dynamics by prioritizing income over team collaboration [49]. Research has also shown that extrinsic and intrinsic motivators can increase patient satisfaction, improve clinical outcomes, and lead to more efficient healthcare delivery [50], including within interprofessional teams [51, 52]. Extrinsic incentives (pay raises, bonuses, professional development) can enhance team performance, quality of care and provider well-being [23, 53], and help with the retention of skilled professionals, ensuring continuity and consistency in patient care [54]. Intrinsic incentives (autonomy, advancement opportunity, personal satisfaction) can increase job satisfaction, engagement in work, and the sense of personal accomplishment [55,56,57].

To our knowledge, a comprehensive review has yet to be done to examine the impact of remuneration models, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on patient, provider, team, and system outcomes in PC. Incentives refer to rewards or inducements, often financial or non-financial, offered to individuals or teams to motivate specific behaviors, actions, or outcomes. "Team outcomes" refers to the specific results or effects that are directly attributable to the functioning, collaboration, and performance of interprofessional teams within primary care settings.

In the evolving landscape of healthcare delivery, where team-based care is heralded as crucial to alleviating the PC crisis, this review can inform the design of team-based models, policy-making, and healthcare management [23]. This review aims to examine the impact of provider remuneration models and extrinsic and intrinsic team-based incentives on various outcomes in PC [23]. In the context of PC, the central research objectives of this scoping review are to: (a) examine the impact of provider (physician or nurse practitioner-led) remuneration models on outcomes; (b) identify extrinsic team-based incentives and their impact on outcomes; (c) identify intrinsic team-based incentives and their impact on outcomes.

Methods

Design

We conducted a rapid scoping review [58, 62] using the Arksey and O’Malley framework [59] and advice from knowledge synthesis specialists [60,61,62,63] to systematically identify and map key concepts in the peer-reviewed and indexed literature. We followed a five-step scoping review methodological process previously reported in our published protocol [23].

To conceptualize remuneration and extrinsic and intrinsic incentives, we identified and categorized the factors in each category based on a literature review (Table 1). This approach allowed us to capture a broad range of incentives reflecting how various factors can drive both personal and collective motivations within an interprofessional team. This review will examine incentives at the individual and group/team levels. Table 1 outlines whether the incentives are focused at the individual or team level. In this context, "factors" refers to specific elements or components that contribute to or comprise remuneration, extrinsic incentives, and intrinsic incentives.

Table 1 Intrinsic and extrinsic incentives framework
Full size table

We searched for peer-reviewed literature in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and EconLit (see Additional File 1). We conducted a hand search of reference lists of included studies using forward and backward citation tracking [75]. We also conducted a grey literature search of the first 100 pages of Google and Google Scholar. This page limit was set to balance thoroughness and feasibility, as it allowed for the identification of relevant themes and sources without overextending the scope of the review. After 100 pages, results typically became less pertinent, with diminishing returns in relevance and quality. This approach ensured that we captured a representative sample of grey literature without compromising the timeliness of the review. Table 2 provides inclusion and exclusion criteria. In cases where reviewers did not reach consensus on the inclusion of an article, a third independent reviewer (MA) was consulted to provide a final decision.

Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

A data extraction form assisted with the narrative analysis to identify common themes in the data [59]. Two team members independently charted data using the data extraction form on Covidence and reviewed by the PI [59, 60]. The charted data was condensed into summary tables based on the research questions. A quality assessment of the included studies was independently conducted by two members using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [83]. The MMAT was chosen for its versatility and established reliability in evaluating studies across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs, making it well-suited for the diverse methodologies represented in this review [83]. The tool comprises a series of criteria specific to each methodological category, allowing reviewers to systematically assess the quality of studies in a standardized manner [83]. Two reviewers conducted the quality assessment independently, comparing results and discussing discrepancies to reach consensus.

Given the diverse nature of the included studies and outcomes, we opted for a narrative synthesis approach to better capture the complexities across methodologies [84]. As such, statistical analyses were deemed inapplicable, which aligns with the study protocol and scoping review reporting practices where frequency counts, rather than detailed statistical analyses, are often appropriate to summarize diverse types of evidence [23, 85].

Results

The reporting of this review was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [86]. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flowchart. 8835 records were initially screened, 194 underwent a full-text review, and 42 met the inclusion criteria. A hand search yielded an additional 29 articles.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

The included studies were deemed high-quality according to the MMAT assessment (Supplemental Material 1).

Study characteristics

Table 3 provides an overview of article characteristics. The studies primarily originated from the UK (22.5%), USA (21.1%), and Canada (39.4%). Most studies employed either quantitative (37%) or qualitative (46%) study designs, with the remaining using mixed methods (17%).

Table 3 Article characteristics
Full size table

Twelve studies (n = 12/71, 17%) assessed the influence of provider remuneration models in team-based PC on patient, provider, team, and system outcomes. The details are summarized in Table 4. Remuneration for salaried and FFS payment models were targeted to the individual, while blended capitation models could target the team or individual.

Table 4 Impact of provider remuneration models on outcomes
Full size table

Several qualitative studies indicate salaried models are more conducive to teamwork [48, 143, 152]. These studies emphasized how non-hierarchical payment and funding models facilitated collaboration between physicians and nurses [48] and reduced financial hierarchy [152]. Studies show that FFS remuneration increases volume [109], discourages referrals to non-physician providers [48] and team collaboration [20] and does not sufficiently compensate for shared patients [143]. A study that examined the impact of shifting from FFS to a quality-based compensation model (payment for performance) [109] found the model was perceived to improve collaboration with colleagues and increase quality care but lowered the satisfaction of physicians [109]. A study from Portugal found the shift from salaried remuneration to blended capitation did not significantly affect avoidable hospitalization rates for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions [98].

In Canada, several studies evaluated team models with different provider remuneration models with respect to team, provider, patient, and system outcomes. However, the level of maturity, self-selection into models and confounding of remuneration and organizational models make interpretation difficult. It is important to note that these studies did not explicitly establish causal inferences regarding the impact of these remuneration models on outcomes. A quantitative study assessing team collaboration in different PC models in Ontario, Canada, revealed that Community Health Centers (CHC; a salaried model) scored significantly higher on the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT) compared to Family Health Teams (FHTs) (blended capitation) [113]. These findings were attributed to the maturity of the models, with the FHT model being less mature in developing inter-dependency between professionals, affecting teamwork.

A survey of providers found that CHCs outperformed other models in terms of provider-reported Family-Centered Care (FCC) scores [125]. However, patient-reported family-centered care (FCC) scores exhibited no significant differences [125]. CHCs' performance was attributed to clinical services, after-hours access, and nurse practitioners [125]. On system outcomes, the salaried CHC model, compared to blended capitation and enhanced FFS models, served a population with a higher proportion of disadvantaged and sicker individuals, recent immigrants, and patients with co-morbidities [39] and fewer emergency department visit rates [39]. CHCs also had significantly higher community orientation scores compared to FFS and blended capitation models [154]. However, another study found that CHCs had higher inpatient admission and readmission rates compared to FHTs [106]. The outcomes could have been influenced by a variety of factors, including residual confounding, health-promoting services, community engagement, and the nature of appointment scheduling [106].

Extrinsic incentives and impact on outcomes

Fifty-four (n = 54/71,76%) articles identified extrinsic incentives in PC teams and their impact on outcomes. The details are summarized in Table 5 and Fig. 2.

Table 5 Extrinsic incentives in interprofessional primary care teams
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Extrinsic incentives and impact on outcomes

Full size image

Pay-for-performance incentives

The majority of studies on P4P programs implied that incentives were offered at the individual level. P4P incentives at the individual level facilitated greater employment of nurses and data entry clerks, implementation of information technology [139] and managerial roles [108]. P4P incentives expanded the skills of nurses in chronic disease management and data recording, increased their perceived autonomy [124], improved job satisfaction [105, 124] and fostered teamwork [119, 122]. However, there were unintended consequences with the use of P4P incentives for providers and communities. P4P incentives increased the workload of nurses [104] [124] and unintentionally reduced their satisfaction [52]. It also potentially resulted in the de-skilling of GPs who delegated more chronic disease management activities to nurses [91]. Another unintended consequence was that the structure of incentives did not consider local context, which resulted in the inequitable distribution of incentives, with practices in more deprived populations receiving lower financial rewards [100]. Finally, the incentives resulted in the gaming of the system, with some practices achieving high scores by excluding patients from targets to achieve goals [93] for financial gain [122].

P4P incentives showed mixed results on the impact on clinical process indicators, with some studies showing some improvement in cardiovascular risk management, asthma [116] and diabetes [115]. In contrast, others showed no or limited impact on influenza vaccination, cervical cancer screening and mammography [140]. Small changes were attributed to low financial value, lack of physician awareness, competing incentives, and administrative burden [115]. Key quality indicators showed improvement in timely follow-up care, reduced time to depression improvement [148], increased quality care [119] and modest improvement in access to care for patients with chronic illness [92]. There was limited evidence on P4P incentives targeted to the team. Available evidence suggests that team incentives encourage collaboration and quality of care by improving the recording of patient diagnoses [91, 148].

Team training

Team training interventions have a positive impact on team collaboration, provider satisfaction, and the development of high-functioning PC teams [94, 117]. These interventions emphasize the importance of aligning organizational culture and reward systems with training efforts.

Resources

Adequate physical infrastructure [107, 112, 141] to support co-location [103, 111], financial resources for health human resources [151] and information technology [95] are essential for collaborative practice at the team level. Professional development opportunities contribute to team functioning by building trust and creating a sense of belonging [155].

Protocols, guidelines, and agreements

Structured protocols, guidelines, and agreements at the team level are crucial for fostering effective team collaboration [143, 151] by clearly defining the roles, responsibilities, and tasks of team members [88, 96, 107, 110, 111, 150, 151].

Team meetings

Team meetings promote effective team functioning [142], teamwork and collaboration [88, 102, 107, 110, 117]. Time devoted to meetings helps build relationships, clarify roles [88, 107, 151], enable communication [111], problem-solving [138], and build trust [87, 88, 94].

Organizational culture

A positive organizational culture facilitates team collaboration and effectiveness [97, 103, 118, 145, 149]. Team interactions contribute to developing shared team vision, objectives and expectations for better patient outcomes [127]. Hierarchical cultures are barriers to collaboration [117] and teamwork, while flatter organizational structures empower individuals and promote shared decision-making [112].

Trust [135], respect [103, 118, 149], and effective leadership [112, 144, 155] are integral to fostering a culture of open communication, collaboration, innovation [155] and resilience [111].

Intrinsic incentives and impact on outcomes

Twenty-two articles (n = 22/71,31%) identified intrinsic motivators (Fig. 3). Table 6 summarizes these articles in detail. The majority of these incentives were implemented at the individual level.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Intrinsic incentives and impact on outcomes

Full size image
Table 6 Intrinsic in interprofessional primary care teams
Full size table

Autonomy

Empowering individual PC providers with decision-making authority, control over work processes, and ownership of patient care tasks is essential for effective interprofessional collaboration, team interdependence, and high-performing PC teams [90, 114, 121, 123, 133, 137]. Power structures associated with designations (e.g., most responsible providers) hinder collaboration [138]. Delegating tasks by physicians to non-physician staff [66] and interchangeable roles can lead to power struggles within the team.

Mastery and competence

Mastery and competence are powerful motivators at the individual level [66] that drive high-performing PC teams [114, 129, 137] and contribute to provider satisfaction [137]. Physicians find motivation in using performance data and monitoring progress over time to achieve mastery in their roles [66].

Social purpose

A deep-seated sense of social purpose and commitment to positively impact patients and colleagues drive provider engagement [66], commitment to teams [102, 110, 114, 136], and dedication to patient needs. Purpose occurs at both the individual and team levels. When social purpose is described, it is often based on the team's vision and addressed by managers [110].

Sense of belonging

Fostering a sense of belonging within teams plays a pivotal role in enhancing team dynamics, communication [96, 103] and developing high-performing teams since it mitigates provider burnout at the individual level, improves provider satisfaction and enhances patient care coordination [146]. PC providers emphasize the importance of feeling psychologically safe and being socially included within their teams. This sense of belonging is often perceived as more important to physicians than financial incentives [66].

Work-life balance

Maintaining a healthy work-life balance at the individual level, achieved through workload sharing and role interchangeability [121] is crucial for quality of life, job satisfaction [151], and job performance [114]. Interchangeable roles reduce the individual workloads of team members, reducing burnout rates and increasing job satisfaction, consequently increasing productivity and improving provider retention [114].

Job satisfaction

Collaborative teamwork significantly enhances job satisfaction at the individual level [155], which, in turn, has a profound impact on work performance and the quality of patient care [126].

Discussion

Understanding the impact of payment remuneration models and extrinsic and intrinsic motivators on outcomes is crucial for optimizing PC service delivery. The structuring of PC models varies significantly across countries, particularly concerning remuneration systems, which in turn influence the implementation and efficacy of these models. This review found that non-FFS funding models, such as salaried models, are perceived to enhance team collaboration among healthcare providers, as evidenced by qualitative studies that highlight the effectiveness of non-hierarchical payment structures in fostering interdisciplinary cooperation. These findings have relevance to countries such as Canada, where FFS payment arrangements are the dominant model [156], which incentivize volume over value, often discouraging referrals to non-physician providers, undermining team collaboration and consequently influencing the spread of interprofessional teams [157]. Research indicates that FFS can create financial hierarchies that limit integrated care approaches [152, 158]. This trend in payment models is different from other countries, such as the United Kingdom [159], Netherlands [160] and Norway [161], which have implemented alternative payment models in team-based settings. A recent Milbank Quarterly paper by Aggarwal and colleagues noted that several contextual factors influence how models are implemented in different countries. These factors include federalism, policy legacies on professional practice and remuneration, embedded power structures and dynamics between professions, the degree of financial investments and the state of the evidence [4].

Policymakers, medical associations, and stakeholders should implement or expand, adapt and co-design alternative payment models, including salaried or blended salary/capitation models in team models. To prevent the unintended consequences of cream skimming in capitation models or lack of productivity in salaried models, these models should be accompanied by risk-adjustment formulas as well as clear and enforceable accountability processes for the organization, administration, and providers, which are linked to performance. Since many studies focus on process evaluations, investments must be made in rapid, robust, and timely outcomes evaluations of PC models to help inform decisions about improvement and expansion.

P4P incentives are the most common extrinsic incentives offered to physicians in team-based care models, and their impact is mixed. We found few studies that examined the impact of P4P incentives where the team is rewarded for performance based on various metrics. This approach recognizes the contributions of non-physician providers within teams, who often inherit the work associated with P4P incentives. Policymakers and medical associations should consider piloting P4P programs that focus on incentives for the team. The metrics and associated incentives should be developed in consultation with stakeholders representing the interprofessional team to build consensus and adoption. Case studies from existing P4P initiatives, such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program in the United States and the UK’s Quality and Outcomes Framework, indicate rewards and performance evaluation systems for teams should be based on valid, reliable, feasible and important performance measures which are easy to understand, allow team members to feel in control over their measured performance and objective and are inclusive of all members [159, 162]. These incentives should be carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences that lead to a focus on specific conditions or populations and based on objective and measurable data [163] and focus on metrics related to teamwork, patient satisfaction and system outcomes, such as reductions in emergency room visits, improved access to care, and cost-effectiveness. Investments in team training should accompany the program. Regular assessment of the program will allow it to remain aligned with evolving healthcare goals, promote team collaboration [116, 164], and permit decision-making on widespread implementation.

This review also demonstrates that PC teams must be adequately supported by extrinsic incentives to function optimally. In the US, healthcare organizations have integrated advanced information technology systems, enhancing communication, data sharing, and coordination among team members, ultimately leading to improved patient care [165]. Similarly, other countries, including Australia and the UK, have implemented strategies ensuring access to sufficient physical space for team meetings, thereby promoting effective teamwork [166]. Globally, teams have been resourced by many disciplines, including physicians, allied health professionals and support workers [1]. In the United States, advanced medical office assistants and panel managers can be part of the core team [1, 22, 167].

To foster collaboration, consensus-based protocols, policies and guidelines should be developed by professional colleges and associations representing different disciplines with jurisdictions that clearly articulate the roles, responsibilities and tasks of different PC providers.

Investments are also needed in team and leadership training, as exemplified by the UK’s leadership training for healthcare providers [168] and the US’s TeamSTEPPS program, which has been shown to improve team dynamics and communication, enhancing patient care [169]. Salas et al. highlight that team training programs, when well-designed and implemented, can significantly improve communication, coordination, and cohesion within healthcare teams, leading to better patient outcomes and increased job satisfaction among providers [170]. Furthermore, Weaver et al. found that team training is associated with improvements in both teamwork processes and clinical performance, reinforcing the need for structured training programs in healthcare settings [171].

Intrinsically motivated individuals tend to outperform extrinsically motivated individuals, even when their abilities are comparable [172]. Research indicates that when providers feel they have authority and control over their work processes, they exhibit higher levels of engagement and collaboration [173, 174]. Feeling valued and included in a team fosters collaboration [175] and less provider burnout [176]. Furthermore, performance improves when team members feel psychologically safe to voice concerns and share ideas without fear of negative consequences [177, 178]. Clinical and administrative leads have an important role in fostering a positive organizational culture in which there is a shared vision, clear articulation of roles, a sense of belonging, and mutual trust and respect between providers. Thus, it is crucial to recruit and adequately compensate high-quality and experienced professional leaders and managers with the knowledge and skills to build and support high-performing PC teams. In addition, a co-dyad approach will be important for leading a team [179].

Since providers are motivated by performance, policymakers should consider implementing a public reporting system for performance metrics, as done in New Zealand and the UK, to increase transparency, improve accountability, and motivate providers to enhance performance [180, 181]. Organizational behaviour literature also suggests team metrics should be part of regular reporting so teams are motivated to improve their collaboration, communication, and overall performance [182]. A performance measurement framework for PC teams should be co-designed and implemented to assess team functioning and enable routine reporting for PC team models. PC providers should be involved in the design and ongoing development of public reporting to enable buy-in for the initiative. External motivators (e.g., compensation) can complement and reinforce PC teams' internal motivation for teamwork (e.g., cohesion) [94].

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the inclusion of English-only language documents, potentially excluding relevant studies and limiting the scope of the analysis. In addition, the restriction of the grey literature search to the first 100 pages of results may have resulted in the omission of additional relevant but less readily accessible sources beyond the 100-page cut-off. Consequently, some less widely disseminated grey literature may not have been captured, potentially impacting the comprehensiveness of findings. The categorization of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives was based on a literature review, which may have excluded specific extrinsic or intrinsic motivators. Moreover, the heterogeneity among included studies, stemming from differences in design, settings, and outcome measures, poses challenges in generalizing findings. Specifically, some studies employed intervention designs with multiple measurement periods and control conditions, while others were cross-sectional or non-interventional qualitative studies. This diversity in study design can impact the interpretation of findings. Future research should aim to build on the existing literature by employing robust study designs that can more effectively evaluate the long-term impacts of various remuneration models and incentive structures on primary care teams.

Conclusion

This study underscores the need for a holistic approach, incorporating remuneration models and both extrinsic and intrinsic incentives, to maximize the potential of interprofessional PC teams. Policymakers, medical associations, and stakeholders should implement non-FFS provider payment models, such as blended or salaried payments, to foster collaboration and performance. This should be accompanied by the piloting of P4P incentives program for teams. Investments must also be made in capital that allows for sufficient physical space, health human resources, information technology and digital tools, and professional development opportunities. Interprofessional teams should have access to team training opportunities and highly effective dyad leadership models. To enable teamwork, stakeholders representing interprofessional teams must come together to develop consensus-based, clear and concise protocols and guidelines on the scope of practice, roles, and responsibilities to enhance team collaboration. Since providers are motivated by mastery, robust performance measurement systems with regular public reporting on co-designed performance outcomes can promote accountability and transparency. As the landscape evolves, continuous research and evaluation will be crucial to ensure the optimization of teamwork and healthcare delivery in PC settings. Future studies should explore the long-term impacts of these interventions on team, provider, patient and system outcomes.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

CHC:

Community Health Centers

CPAT:

Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool

FFS:

Fee-for-Service

FHTs:

Family Health Teams

GPs:

General Practitioners

MMAT:

Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool

NR:

Not Reported

PC:

Primary Care

P4P:

Pay-for-Performance

PRISMA-ScR:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews

UK:

United Kingdom

USA:

United States of America

References

  1. Freund T, Everett C, Griffiths P, Hudon C, Naccarella L, Laurant M. Skill mix, roles and remuneration in the primary care workforce: who are the healthcare professionals in the primary care teams across the world? Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(3):727–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Russo G, Perelman J, Zapata T, Šantrić-Milićević M. The layered crisis of the primary care medical workforce in the European region: what evidence do we need to identify causes and solutions? Hum Resour Health. 2023;21(1):55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Dehn RW. Global physician shortages and the PA profession. JAAPA. 2008;21(10):46–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B, Abdelhalim R, Baker GR. Building High-Performing Primary Care Systems: After a Decade of Policy Change, Is Canada “Walking the Talk?” Milbank Q. 2023;101(4):1139–90.

  5. Bobbette N, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Tranmer J, Lysaght R, Ufholz L-A, Donnelly C. Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and interprofessional, team-based primary health care: a scoping review. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(7):1470–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Will KK, Johnson ML, Lamb G. Team-based care and patient satisfaction in the hospital setting: a systematic review. J Patient-Centered Res Rev. 2019;6(2):158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Haj-Ali W, Moineddin R, Hutchison B, Wodchis WP, Glazier RH. Role of Interprofessional primary care teams in preventing avoidable hospitalizations and hospital readmissions in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B. December 2012 Toward a Primary Care Strategy for Canada. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement. Toward a primary care strategy for Canada : Vers une stratégie des soins primaires pour le Canada, Canadian Electronic Library. Canada. 2021. Retrieved from https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/742276. Accessed 20 Nov 2024. 

  9. Martin AK, Green TL, McCarthy AL, Sowa PM, Laakso EL. Healthcare teams:Terminology, confusion, and ramifications. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2022;8:765-72. 

  10. Ashcroft R, Bobbette N, Moodie S, et al. Strengthening collaboration for interprofessional primary care teams: Insights and key learnings from six disciplinary perspectives. Healthcare Management Forum. 2024;37(1 suppl):68S-75S. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/08404704241266763.

  11. Suter E, Mallinson S, Misfeldt R, Boakye O, Nasmith L, Wong ST. Advancing team-based primary health care: a comparative analysis of policies in western Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Somé N, Devlin RA, Mehta N, Zaric G, Sarma S. Team-based primary care practice and physician’s services: Evidence from Family Health Teams in Ontario. Canada Soc Sci Med. 2020;264:113310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Malta DC, Santos MAS, Stopa SR, Vieira JEB, Melo EA. Reis AACd: Family health strategy coverage in Brazil, according to the National Health Survey, 2013. Ciencia Saude Coletiva. 2016;21:327–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abelsen B, Fosse A. Team Effectiveness in General Practice: Insights from the Norwegian Primary Healthcare Team Pilot Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/1180170. Accessed 20 Nov 2024.

  15. Hansen AB, Baste V, Hetlevik Ø, Smith-Sivertsen T, Haukenes I, de Beurs D, Nielen M, Ruths S. Comparison of depression care provided in general practice in Norway and the Netherlands: registry-based cohort study (The Norwegian GP-DEP study). BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1494.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Epperly T. The patient-centred medical home in the USA. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):373–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jackson GL, Powers BJ, Chatterjee R, Prvu Bettger J, Kemper AR, Hasselblad V, Dolor RJ, Irvine RJ, Heidenfelder BL, Kendrick AS. The patient-centered medical home: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):169–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewis JM, Baeza JI, Alexander D. Partnerships in primary care in Australia: Network structure, dynamics and sustainability. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(2):280–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yates R, Wells L, Carnell K. General practice based multidisciplinary care teams in australia: still some unanswered questions. A discussion paper from the australian general practice network. Australian J Primary Health. 2007;13(2):10–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pullon S, McKinlay E, Dew K. Primary health care in New Zealand: the impact of organisational factors on teamwork. Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59(560):191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Russell GM, Miller WL, Gunn JM, Levesque J-F, Harris MF, Hogg WE, Scott CM, Advocat JR, Halma L, Chase SM. Contextual levers for team-based primary care: lessons from reform interventions in five jurisdictions in three countries. Fam Pract. 2018;35(3):276–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Interprofessional Primary Care Teams: A literature review of potential international best practices. https://www.cfpc.ca/en/executive-summary-interprofessional-primary-care-teams.

  23. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B, Kokorelias KM, Mehta K, Greenberg L, Moran K, Barber D, Samson K. Impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: protocol for a rapid scoping review. BMJ Open. 2023;13(6):e072076.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. A Report by the Office of the Auditor General of Alberta.http://www.oag.ab.ca/files/oag/OAGJuly2012report.pdf.

  25. Report of the Auditor General of Alberta .http://www.oag.ab.ca/files/oag/OAGJuly2012report.pdf.

  26. Cook LL, Golonka RP, Cook CM, Walker RL, Faris P, Spenceley S, Lewanczuk R, Wedel R, Love R, Andres C. Association between continuity and access in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2020;8(4):E722.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. McAlister FA, Bakal JA, Green L, Bahler B, Lewanczuk R. The effect of provider affiliation with a primary care network on emergency department visits and hospital admissions. CMAJ. 2018;190(10):E276–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Moe GC, Moe JE, Bailey AL. Evaluating the implementation of collaborative teams in community family practice using the Primary Care Assessment Tool. Can Fam Physician. 2019;65(12):e515–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Groupe de médicine de famille. Qu’est—‐ce qu’un groupe de médicine de famille (GMF)? Retrieved from https://www.ciussscentreouest.ca/programmes-et-services/groupes-de-medecine-familialegmf/#:~:text=Les%20GMF%20constituent%20des%20regroupements,l'ensemble%20des%20dossiers%20m%C3%A9dicaux. Accessed 20 Nov 2024.

  30. A propos des GMF: Pourquoi créer des groups de médicine de famille (GMF)? Retrieved from https://www.cfpc.ca/fr/choisirla-medecine-defamille#:~:text=Les%20groupes%20d'int%C3%A9r%C3%AAt%20en,offre%20le%20m%C3%A9tier%20de%20m%C3%A9decin. Accessed 20 Nov 2024.

  31. Pineault R, Borgès Da Silva R, Provost S, Breton M, Tousignant P, Fournier M, et al. Impacts of Québec Primary Healthcare Reforms on Patients’ Experience of Care, Unmet Needs, and Use of Services. Int J Family Med. 2016;2016:72–84.

  32. Tourigny A, Aubin M, Haggerty J, Bonin L, Morin D, Reinharz D, Leduc Y, St-Pierre M, Houle N, Giguère A. Patients’ perceptions of the quality of care after primary care reform: Family medicine groups in Quebec. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(7):e273–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Strumpf E, Ammi M, Diop M, Fiset-Laniel J, Tousignant P. The impact of team-based primary care on health care services utilization and costs: Quebec’s family medicine groups. J Health Econ. 2017;55:76–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Carter R, Quesnel-Vallée A, Plante C, Gamache P, Lévesque J-F. Effect of family medicine groups on visits to the emergency department among diabetic patients in Quebec between 2000 and 2011: a population-based segmented regression analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ouimet M-J, Pineault R. Prud’homme A, Provost S, Fournier M, Levesque J-F: The impact of primary healthcare reform on equity of utilization of services in the province of Quebec: a 2003–2010 follow-up. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Coyle N, Strumpf E, Fiset-Laniel J, Tousignant P, Roy Y. Characteristics of physicians and patients who join team-based primary care practices: evidence from Quebec’s Family Medicine Groups. Health Policy. 2014;116(2–3):264–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Diop M, Fiset-Laniel J, Borgès Da Silva R, et al. Does enrollment in multidisciplinary teambased primary care practice improve adherence to guideline-recommended processes of care? Quebec’s Family Medicine Groups, 2002–2010. Health Policy. 2017;121(4):378-88.

  38. Green ME, Harris SB, Webster-Bogaert S, Han H, Kotecha J, Kopp A, Ho MM, Birtwhistle RV, Glazier RH. Impact of a provincial quality-improvement program on primary health care in Ontario: a population-based controlled before-and-after study. CMAJ Open. 2017;5(2):E281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Glazier R. Comparison of primary care models in Ontario by demographics, case mix and emergency department use, 2008/09 to 2009/10 : Comparaison des modèles de soins primaires en Ontario en fonction des données démographiques, de la casuistique et de l'utilisation des salles d'urgence, de 2008-2009 à 2009-2010, Canadian Electronic Library. Canada. 2012. Retrieved from https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/ffrbsz. Accessed 20 Nov 2024..

  40. Haj-Ali W, Hutchison B, Moineddin R, Wodchis WP, Glazier RH. Comparing primary care Interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams on access to care and health services utilization in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fainman EZ, Kucukyazici B. Design of financial incentives and payment schemes in healthcare systems: A review. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2020;72:100901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gosden T, Pedersen L, Torgerson D. How should we pay doctors? A systematic review of salary payments and their effect on doctor behaviour. QJM. 1999 Jan;92(1):47-55. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/qjmed/92.1.47.

  43. Zhao S, Ping J, Zhu H, Ji W, Wang Y. WANG Y: Job Characteristics Model-based Study of the Intrinsic Incentive Mechanism for Primary Health Workers. Chinese General Pract. 2023;26(25):3118.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Morishita K, Katase K, Ishikane M, Otomo Y. Motivating factors for frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey in Japan. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(16):15068–76.

  45. Judson TJ, Volpp KG, Detsky AS. Harnessing the right combination of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to change physician behavior. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2233–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Berdud M, Cabasés JM, Nieto J. Incentives and intrinsic motivation in healthcare. Gac Sanit. 2016;30(6):408–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lukey A, Johnston S, Montesanti S, Donnelly C, Wankah P, Breton M, et al. Facilitating integration through team-based primary healthcare: A cross-case policy analysis of four Canadian provinces. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(2):12.

  48. Wranik WD, Haydt SM, Katz A, Levy AR, Korchagina M, Edwards JM, Bower I. Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Cross DA, Exworthy M, Kitchener M, McDermott AM, Kitchener M, Exworthy M, et al. Contextual Factors Affecting the Implementation of Team-Based Primary Care: A Scoping Review. In: Managing Improvement in Healthcare. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2017. p. 77–98.

  50. Friedberg MW, Chen PG, Van Busum KR, Aunon F, Pham C, Caloyeras J, Mattke S, Pitchforth E, Quigley DD, Brook RH, Crosson FJ, Tutty M. Factors Affecting Physician Professional Satisfaction and Their Implications for Patient Care, Health Systems, and Health Policy. Rand Health Q. 2014;3(4):1.

  51. Zhao S, Ping J, Zhu H, Ji W, Wang Y, Wang Y. Job characteristics model-based study of the intrinsic motivations for primary care practitioners. Chinese General Pract J. 2024;1(1):3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. McDonald R, Harrison S, Checkland K, Campbell SM, Roland M. Impact of financial incentives on clinical autonomy and internal motivation in primary care: ethnographic study. BMJ. 2007;334(7608):1357.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Moller AC, Jager AJ, Williams GC, Kao AC. US physicians’ work motivation and their occupational health. Med Care. 2019;57(5):334–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pahlevan Sharif S, She L, Liu L, Naghavi N, Lola GK, Sharif Nia H, Froelicher ES. Retaining nurses via organizational support and pay during COVID-19 pandemic: The moderating effect between intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. Nurs Open. 2023;10(1):123–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Van den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang C-H, Rosen CC. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J Manag. 2016;42(5):1195–229.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kao AC. Driven to care: aligning external motivators with intrinsic motivation. Health Serv Res. 2015;50(Suppl 2):2216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Carmichael SL, Mehta K, Raheel H, Srikantiah S, Chaudhuri I, Trehan S, Mohanty S, Borkum E, Mahapatra T, Weng Y. Effects of team-based goals and non-monetary incentives on front-line health worker performance and maternal health behaviours: a cluster randomised controlled trial in Bihar, India. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(4):e001146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Tricco AC, Langlois Etienne V, Straus SE, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. World Health Organization; 2017. Geneva: WorldHealth Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

  59. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, Perrier L, Hutton B, Moher D, Straus SE. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Van den Broeck A, Howard JL, Van Vaerenbergh Y, Leroy H, Gagné M. Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Organ Psychol Rev. 2021;11(3):240–73.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11:227–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Philpps-Taylor M, Shortell SM. More than money: motivating physician behavior change in accountable care organizations. Milbank Q. 2016;94(4):832–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Dietz AS, Benishek LE, Thompson D, Pronovost PJ, Weaver SJ. Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):433–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. West MA, Lyubovnikova J, Eckert R, Jean-Louis D. Collective leadership for cultures of high quality health care. J Organizational Effectiveness. 2014;1(3):240–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Misra-Hebert AD, Perzynski A, Rothberg MB, Fox J, Mercer MB, Liu X, Hu B, Aron DC, Stange KC. Implementing team-based primary care models: a mixed-methods comparative case study in a large, integrated health care system. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(11):1928–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Aarons GA, Ehrhart MG, Farahnak LR, Hurlburt MS. Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): a randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire WL. What Do We Know about Health Care Team Effectiveness? A Review of the Literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(3):263–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Buchbinder SB, Wilson M, Melick CF, Powe NR. Primary care physician job satisfaction and turnover. Am J Manag Care. 2001;7(7):701–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Goetz K, Jossen M, Szecsenyi J, Rosemann T, Hahn K, Hess S. Job satisfaction of primary care physicians in Switzerland: an observational study. Fam Pract. 2016;33(5):498–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Herzberg F, Mausner B, Snyderman BB. The motivation to work. Routledge: Transaction publishers; 2011.

  75. Haddaway NR, Grainger MJ, Gray CT. Citationchaser: A tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching. Res Synth Methods. 2022;13(4):533–45.

  76. Eijkenaar F. Pay for Performance in Health Care: An International Overview of Initiatives. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69(3):251–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Flodgren G, Eccles MP, Shepperd S, Scott A, Parmelli E, Beyer FR. An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(7):Cd009255.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Roland M, Dudley RA. How Financial and Reputational Incentives Can Be Used to Improve Medical Care. Health Serv Res. 2015;50(Suppl 2):2090–115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Conrad DA, Perry L. Quality-based financial incentives in health care: can we improve quality by paying for it? Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:357–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ryan AM. Effects of the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration on Medicare patient mortality and cost. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(3):821–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Rosenthal MB, Dudley RA. Pay-for-performance: will the latest payment trend improve care? JAMA. 2007;297(7):740–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Christianson JB, Leatherman S, Sutherland K. Lessons from evaluations of purchaser pay-for-performance programs: A review of the evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(6):5S-35S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Nicolau B, O’Cathain A. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34(4):285–91.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Lisy K, Porritt K. Narrative synthesis: considerations and challenges. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2016;14(4):201.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W. O’brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K: A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MD, Horsley T, Weeks L. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Arevian M. The significance of a collaborative practice model in delivering care to chronically ill patients: A case study of managing diabetes mellitus in a primary health care center. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(5):444–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Bareil C, Duhamel F, Lalonde L, Goudreau J, Hudon É, Lussier M-T, Lévesque L, Lessard S, Turcotte A, Lalonde G. Facilitating Implementation of Interprofessional Collaborative Practices into Primary Care: A Trilogy of Driving Forces. J Healthc Manag. 2015;60(4):287–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Beaulieu M-D, Haggerty J, Tousignant P, Barnsley J, Hogg W, Geneau R, Bonin L. Characteristics of primary care practices associated with high quality of care. Cmaj. 2013;185(12):E590–6.

  90. Burgess J, Martin A, Senner W. A framework to assess nurse practitioner role integration in primary health care. Can J Nurs Res. 2011;43(1):22–40.

  91. Campbell SM, McDonald R, Lester H. The experience of pay for performance in English family practice: a qualitative study. Annals Family Med. 2008;6(3):228–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Campbell SM, Kontopantelis E, Reeves D, Valderas JM, Gaehl E, Small N, Roland MO. Changes in patient experiences of primary care during health service reforms in England between 2003 and 2007. Annals Family Med. 2010;8(6):499–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Campbell S, Hannon K, Lester H. Exception reporting in the Quality and Outcomes Framework: views of practice staff - a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(585):183–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Cashman SB, Reidy P, Cody K, Lemay CA. Developing and measuring progress toward collaborative, integrated, interdisciplinary health care teams. J Interprof Care. 2004;18(2):183–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Cassou M, Mousquès J, Franc C. General practitioners’ income and activity: the impact of multi-professional group practice in France. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:1295–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Delva D, Jamieson M, Lemieux M. Team effectiveness in academic primary health care teams. J Interprof Care. 2008;22(6):598–611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Dieleman SL, Farris KB, Feeny D, Johnson JA, Tsuyuki RT, Brilliant S. Primary health care teams: team members’ perceptions of the collaborative process. J Interprof Care. 2004;18(1):75–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Dimitrovová K, Perelman J, Serrano-Alarcón M. Effect of a national primary care reform on avoidable hospital admissions (2000–2015): A difference-in-difference analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2020;252:112908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Hiroeh U, Roland M. Pay-for-Performance Programs in Family Practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(4):375–84. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1056/NEJMsa055505.

  100. Doran T, Fullwood C, Kontopantelis E, Reeves D. Effect of financial incentives on inequalities in the delivery of primary clinical care in England: analysis of clinical activity indicators for the quality and outcomes framework. The Lancet. 2008;372(9640):728–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Doran T, Campbell S, Fullwood C, Kontopantelis E, Roland M. Performance of small general practices under the UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(578):e335–44.

  102. Drew P, Jones B, Norton D. Team effectiveness in primary care networks in Alberta. Healthcare Quarterly (Toronto, Ont). 2010;13(3):33–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Drummond N, Abbott K, Williamson T, Somji B. Interprofessional primary care in academic family medicine clinics: implications for education and training. Can Fam Physician. 2012;58(8):e450–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Gemmell I, Campbell S, Hann M, Sibbald B. Assessing workload in general practice in England before and after the introduction of the pay-for-performance contract. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(3):509–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Gené-Badia J, Escaramis-Babiano G, Sans-Corrales M, Sampietro-Colom L, Aguado-Menguy F, Cabezas-Pena C, de Puelles PG. Impact of economic incentives on quality of professional life and on end-user satisfaction in primary care. Health Policy. 2007;80(1):2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Glazier R, Kopp A, Hutchison B. Comparison of family health teams to other primary care models, 2004/05 to 2011/12 /. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Electronic Library; 2015. Retrieved from https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/sv4bj2. Accessed 20 Nov 2024.

  107. Goldman J, Meuser J, Rogers J, Lawrie L, Reeves S. Interprofessional collaboration in family health teams: an Ontariobased study. Canadian Family Physician. 2010;56(10):e368–74.

  108. Grant S, Huby G, Watkins F, Checkland K, McDonald R, Davies H, Guthrie B. The impact of pay-for-performance on professional boundaries in UK general practice: an ethnographic study. Sociol Health Illn. 2009;31(2):229–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Greene J, Hibbard JH, Overton V. A Case Study of a Team-Based, Quality-Focused Compensation Model for Primary Care Providers. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(3):207–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Hämel K, Vössing C. The collaboration of general practitioners and nurses in primary care: a comparative analysis of concepts and practices in Slovenia and Spain. Primary Health Care Research & Development. 2017;18(5):492–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Harris MF, Advocat J, Crabtree BF, Levesque JF, Miller WL, Gunn JM, Hogg W, Scott CM, Chase SM, Halma L, et al. Interprofessional teamwork innovations for primary health care practices and practitioners: evidence from a comparison of reform in three countries. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:35–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Hepp S, Misfeldt R, Lait J, Armitage GD, Suter E. Organizational factors influencing inter-professional team functioning in primary care networks. Healthcare Quarterly (Toronto, Ont). 2014;17(2):57–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Khan AI, Barnsley J, Harris JK, Wodchis WP. Examining the extent and factors associated with interprofessional teamwork in primary care settings. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(1):52–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Khazei M, Shukor AR, Biotech M. A Novel Instrument for Integrated Measurement and Assessment of Intrinsic Motivation, Team Climate, and Burnout in Multidisciplinary Teams. Perm J. 2020;24:19.155. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.7812/TPP/19.155. Epub 2020 Feb 5.

  115. Kiran T, Victor JC, Kopp A, Shah BR, Glazier RH. The relationship between financial incentives and quality of diabetes care in Ontario. Canada Diabetes Care. 2012;35(5):1038–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Kirschner K, Braspenning J, Akkermans RP, Jacobs JA, Grol R. Assessment of a pay-for-performance program in primary care designed by target users. Fam Pract. 2013;30(2):161–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. LaMothe J, Hendricks S, Halstead J, Taylor J, Lee E, Pike C, Ofner S. Developing interprofessional collaborative practice competencies in rural primary health care teams. Nurs Outlook. 2021;69(3):447–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Lanham HJ, McDaniel RR Jr, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stange KC, Tallia AF, Nutting P. How improving practice relationships among clinicians and nonclinicians can improve quality in primary care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35(9):457–66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Lehtovuori T, Kauppila T, Kallio J, Raina M, Suominen L, Heikkinen AM. Financial team incentives improved recording of diagnoses in primary care: a quasi-experimental longitudinal follow-up study with controls. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Lester H, Matharu T, Mohammed MA, Lester D, Foskett-Tharby R. Implementation of pay for performance in primary care: a qualitative study 8 years after introduction. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(611):e408–15.

  121. MacNaughton K, Chreim S, Bourgeault IL. Role construction and boundaries in interprofessional primary health care teams: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Maisey S, Steel N, Marsh R, Gillam S, Fleetcroft R, Howe A. Effects of payment for performance in primary care: qualitative interview study. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(3):133–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Markon M-P, Chiocchio F, Fleury M-J. Modelling the effect of perceived interdependence among mental healthcare professionals on their work role performance. J Interprof Care. 2017;31(4):520–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. McGregor W, Jabareen H, O’Donnell CA, Mercer SW, Watt GC. Impact of the 2004 GMS contract on practice nurses: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(555):711–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Mayo-Bruinsma L, Hogg W, Taljaard M, Dahrouge S. Family-centred care delivery: comparing models of primary care service delivery in Ontario. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(11):1202–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Mohr DC, Young GJ, Meterko M, Stolzmann KL, White B. Job satisfaction of primary care team members and quality of care. Am J Med Qual. 2011;26(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Mundt MP, Gilchrist VJ, Fleming MF, Zakletskaia LI, Tuan W-J, Beasley JW. Effects of primary care team social networks on quality of care and costs for patients with cardiovascular disease. Annals Family Med. 2015;13(2):139–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Mundt MP, Agneessens F, TuanW-J, Zakletskaia LI, Kamnetz SA, Gilchrist VJ. Primary care team communication networks, team climate, quality of care, and medical costs for patients with diabetes: a crosssectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;58:1–11.

  129. Naccarella L. General practitioner networks matter in primary health care team service provision. Aust J Prim Health. 2009;15(4):312–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Naccarella L, Greenstock LN, Brooks PM. A framework to support team-based models of primary care within the Australian health care system. Med J Aust. 2013;199(5):S22–5.

  131. Oandasan IF, Conn LG, Lingard L, Karim A, Jakubovicz D, Whitehead C, Reeves S. The impact of space and time on interprofessional teamwork in Canadian primary health care settings: implications for health care reform. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2009;10(2):151–62.

  132. O’Brien P, Aggarwal M, Rozmovits L, Whittaker M-K, Ellison P. The teaming project: Learning from highfunctioning interprofessional primary care teams. 2016. Retrieved from https://dfcm.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/The%20Teaming%20Project%20Report%202016-10-17.pdf.

  133. Pereira JG. Oliveira MAdC: Nurses’ autonomy in Primary Care: from collaborative practices to advanced practice. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2018;31:627–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Phipps-Taylor M, Shortell SM. More than money: motivating physician behavior change in accountable care organizations. The milbank quarterly. 2016;94(4):832–61.

  135. Pullon S. Competence, respect and trust: Key features of successful interprofessional nurse-doctor relationships. J Interprof Care. 2008;22(2):133–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Pullon S, Morgan S, Macdonald L, McKinlay E, Gray B. Observation of interprofessional collaboration in primary care practice: a multiple case study. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(6):787–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Rioux-Dubois A, Perron A. The integration of nurse practitioners into primary health care: Rethinking the negotiation of complex dynamics. Rech Soins Infirm. 2021;145(2):38–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Rioux-Dubois A, Perron A. Enacting primary healthcare interprofessional collaboration: a multisite ethnography of nurse practitioner integration in Ontario, Canada. J Interprofessional Care. 2023;37(4):532–40.

  139. Roland M, Campbell S, Bailey N, Whalley D, Sibbald B. Financial incentives to improve the quality of primary care in the UK: predicting the consequences of change. Primary Health Care Res Dev. 2006;7(1):18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early Experience With Pay-for-PerformanceFrom Concept to Practice. JAMA. 2005;294(14):1788–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Russell GMMFMFMP, Dahrouge SM, Hogg WMMMDF, Geneau RP, Muldoon LMDMPHF, Tuna MP: Managing Chronic Disease in Ontario Primary Care: The Impact of Organizational Factors. Annals Family Med 2009, 7(4):309–318.

  142. Savageau JA, Cragin L, Ferguson WJ, Sefton L, Pernice J. Recruitment and Retention of Community Health Center Primary Care Physicians post MA Health Care Reform: 2008 vs. 2013 Physician Surveys. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2016;27(3):1011–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Schadewaldt V, McInnes E, Hiller JE, Gardner A. Experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in collaborative practice models in primary healthcare in Australia–a multiple case study using mixed methods. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Shaw A, De Lusignan S, Rowlands G. Do primary care professionals work as a team: a qualitative study. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(4):396–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Shortell SM, Marsteller JA, Lin M, Pearson ML, Wu S-Y, Mendel P, Cretin S, Rosen M. The Role of Perceived Team Effectiveness in Improving Chronic Illness Care. Med Care. 2004;42(11):1040–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Song H, Ryan M, Tendulkar S, Fisher J, Martin J, Peters AS, Frolkis JP, Rosenthal MB, Chien AT, Singer SJ. Team dynamics, clinical work satisfaction, and patient care coordination between primary care providers. Health Care Manage Rev. 2017;42(1):28–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Taylor EF, Dale S, Peikes D, Brown R, Ghosh A, Crosson J, Anglin G, Keith R, Shapiro R. Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: first annual report. Math Pol Res. 2015.

  148. Unützer J, Chan Y-F, Hafer E, Knaster J, Shields A, Powers D, Veith RC. Quality improvement with pay-for-performance incentives in integrated behavioral health care. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(6):e41–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Valentijn PP, Ruwaard D, Vrijhoef HJ, de Bont A, Arends RY, Bruijnzeels MA. Collaboration processes and perceived effectiveness of integrated care projects in primary care: a longitudinal mixed-methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Beales J, Walji R, Papoushek C, Austin Z. Exploring professional culture in the context of family health team interprofessional collaboration. Health Interprofessional Pract Educ. 2011;1(1).

  151. Wilson DR, Moores DG, Lyons SCW, Cave AJ, Donoff MG. Family physicians’ interest and involvement in interdisciplinary collaborative practice in Alberta, Canada. Primary Health Care Res Dev. 2005;6(3):224–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Wranik WD, Haydt SM. Funding models and medical dominance in interdisciplinary primary care teams: qualitative evidence from three Canadian provinces. Hum Resour Health. 2018;16(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Xyrichis A, Lowton K. What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45(1):140–53.

  154. Muldoon L, Dahrouge S, Hogg W, Geneau R, Russell G, Shortt M. Community orientation in primary care practices: Results from the Comparison of Models of Primary Health Care in Ontario Study. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(7):676–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. The teaming project:Learning from high-functioning interprofessional primary care teams.https://dfcm.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/The%20Teaming%20Project%20Report%202016-10-17.pdf.

  156. Mitra G, Grudniewicz A, Lavergne MR, Fernandez R, Scott I. Alternative payment models: A path forward. Can Fam Physician. 2021;67(11):805–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Lavoie-Tremblay M, O’Connor P, Lavigne GL, Briand A, Biron A, Baillargeon S, MacGibbon B, Ringer J, Cyr G. Effective strategies to spread redesigning care processes among healthcare teams. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015;47(4):328–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Kalseth J, Kasteng F, Borgermans L. Project Integrate-Financial Models for Care Integration. 2015. Retrieved from: https://sintef.brage.unit.no/sintef-xmlui/handle/11250/2453640. Accessed 20 Nov 2024.

  159. Gillam SJ, Siriwardena AN, Steel N. Pay-for-performance in the United Kingdom: impact of the quality and outcomes framework—a systematic review. Annals Family Med. 2012;10(5):461–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Lindner L, Hayen A. “Value-based payment models in primary care: An assessment of the Menzis Shared Savings programme in the Netherlands”. 2023. OECD Health Working Papers, No. 158, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1787/0810f2ba-en.

  161. Opoku MA. Effects of Physician Payment Methods: A Descriptive Study of the Situation in Norway, UK. Ghana (Master's thesis). Retrieved from: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/30221/Master-Opoku-m-forside.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1. Accessed 20 Nov 2024.

  162. Berwick DM. Making good on ACOs’ promise—the final rule for the Medicare shared savings program. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(19):1753–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Kolozsvári LR, Orozco-Beltran D, Rurik I. Do family physicians need more payment for working better? Financial incentives in primary care. Aten Primaria. 2014;46(5):261–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Kondo KK, Damberg CL, Mendelson A. Motu’apuaka M, Freeman M, O’Neil M, Relevo R, Low A, Kansagara D: Implementation processes and pay for performance in healthcare: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:61–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. Norton PT, Rodriguez HP, Shortell SM, Lewis VA. Organizational influences on health care system adoption and use of advanced health information technology capabilities. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25(1):e21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. Supper I, Catala O, Lustman M, Chemla C, Bourgueil Y, Letrilliart L. Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors. J Public Health. 2015;37(4):716–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  167. Chapman SA, Blash LK. New roles for medical assistants in innovative primary care practices. Health Serv Res. 2017;52:383–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Bekas S. Leadership development in UK medical training: pedagogical theory and practice. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(1):4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, et al. TeamSTEPPS™: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, et al., editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and Tools). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43686/. Accessed 20 Nov 2024

  170. Salas E, Almeida SA, Salisbury M, King H, Lazzara EH, Lyons R, Wilson KA, Almeida PA, McQuillan R. What are the critical success factors for team training in health care? Joint Commission J Quality Patient Safety. 2009;35(8):398–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Weaver SJ, Dy SM, Rosen MA. Team-training in healthcare: a narrative synthesis of the literature. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(5):359–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  172. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Lourenção LG. Silva AGd, Borges MA: Levels of engagement in primary health care professionals: a comparative study in two Brazilian municipalities. Escola Anna Nery. 2019;23:e20190005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Linzer M, Manwell LB, Williams ES, Bobula JA, Brown RL, Varkey AB, Man B, McMurray JE, Maguire A, Horner-Ibler B. Working conditions in primary care: physician reactions and care quality. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(1):28–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Kassianos AP, Ignatowicz A, Greenfield G, Majeed A, Car J, Pappas Y. "Partners rather than just providers…": A qualitative study on health care professionals' views on implementation of multidisciplinary group meetings in the North West London Integrated Care Pilot. Int J Integr Care. 2015;15:e032. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.5334/ijic.2019.

  176. Young AM, Aronoff C, Goel S, Jerome M, Brower K. A Focus on Leadership Communication and Feeling Valued to Prevent Burnout and Turnover Among Healthcare Professionals. J Occup Environ Med. 2023:10–97.

  177. O’donovan R, Mcauliffe E. A systematic review of factors that enable psychological safety in healthcare teams. Int J Quality Health Care. 2020;32(4):240–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. O’Donovan R, De Brún A, McAuliffe E. Healthcare professionals experience of psychological safety, voice, and silence. Front Psychol. 2021;12:626689.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  179. Baldwin KS, Dimunation N, Alexander J. Health care leadership and the dyad model. Physician Exec. 2011;37(4):66–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Shuker C, Bohm G, Hamblin R, Simpson A, George DS, Stolarek I, et al. Progress in public reporting in New Zealand since the ombudsman’s ruling, and an invitation. N Z Med J. 2017;130(1457):11–22.

  181. Marshall MN, Romano PS, Davies HT. How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care? Int J Quality in Health Care. 2004;16(suppl-1):i57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Watson HJ, Hill J. What gets watched gets done: How metrics can motivate. Business Intell J. 2009;14(3):4–7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge Altea Kthupi and Anum Asif Hakim Ali for assistance with data collection and extraction.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, INSPIRE-PHC (grant#:514630). We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario, the Ontario College of Familly Physicians and the Ontario Medical Association Section General Practice Section of General and Family Practice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Room 500, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada

    Monica Aggarwal, Selin Bilgic & Richard H. Glazier

  2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Monica Aggarwal & Richard H. Glazier

  3. Departments of Family Medicine and Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster, Hamilton, Canada

    Brian Hutchison

  4. Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kristina M. Kokorelias

  5. Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kristina M. Kokorelias

  6. Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kristina M. Kokorelias

  7. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Richard H. Glazier

  8. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Richard H. Glazier

Authors
  1. Monica Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Hutchison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristina M. Kokorelias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Selin Bilgic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard H. Glazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MA, BH and RG were responsible for the inception and conception of the study. MA was responsible for the design of the study. MA and KMK led the screening of articles and the analysis and interpretation of data. All authors (MA, BH, KMK, SB) contributed to the interpretation of the results. MA and KMK led the development of the manuscript. Drafts of the manuscript were reviewed and revised by all authors. All the authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Aggarwal.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Since this study was a review and did not involve primary data collection from human participants, ethics approval and consent to participate were not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aggarwal, M., Hutchison, B., Kokorelias, K.M. et al. The impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: results from a rapid scoping review. BMC Prim. Care 26, 25 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12875-024-02653-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12875-024-02653-5

Keywords

BMC Primary Care

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us