PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Collaboration between traditional health practitioners (THPs) and biomedical health practitioners (BHPs) is highly recommended in catering for pluralistic healthcare users. Little is known about bidirectional collaborations at healthcare service provision level.
OBJECTIVE: To map global evidence on collaboration attempts between THPs and BHPs between January 1978 and August 2023.
METHODS: We followed the Arksey and O\'Malley framework in conducting this scoping review. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility. A descriptive numerical and content analysis was performed on ATLAS.ti 22. A narrative summary of the findings was reported using the PRISMAScR guideline.
RESULTS: Of the 8404 screened studies, 10 studies from 12 articles were included in the final review. Studies came from America (n = 5), Africa (n = 2), China (n = 2) and New Zealand (n = 1). Eight studies reported case studies of bidirectional collaboration programmes, while two studies reported on experimental research. All collaborations occurred within biomedical healthcare facilities. Collaboration often entailed activities such as relationship building, training of all practitioners, coordinated meetings, cross-referrals, treatment plan discussions and joint health promotion activities.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that practitioner-level collaborations within healthcare are few and sparse. More work is needed to move policy on integration of the two systems into implementation. There is a need to conduct more research and document emerging collaborations.Contribution: This research illuminates the contextual challenges associated with sustaining collaborations. The data would be important in informing areas that need strengthening in the work towards integration of THPs and BHPs.
OBJECTIVE: To map global evidence on collaboration attempts between THPs and BHPs between January 1978 and August 2023.
METHODS: We followed the Arksey and O\'Malley framework in conducting this scoping review. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility. A descriptive numerical and content analysis was performed on ATLAS.ti 22. A narrative summary of the findings was reported using the PRISMAScR guideline.
RESULTS: Of the 8404 screened studies, 10 studies from 12 articles were included in the final review. Studies came from America (n = 5), Africa (n = 2), China (n = 2) and New Zealand (n = 1). Eight studies reported case studies of bidirectional collaboration programmes, while two studies reported on experimental research. All collaborations occurred within biomedical healthcare facilities. Collaboration often entailed activities such as relationship building, training of all practitioners, coordinated meetings, cross-referrals, treatment plan discussions and joint health promotion activities.
CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that practitioner-level collaborations within healthcare are few and sparse. More work is needed to move policy on integration of the two systems into implementation. There is a need to conduct more research and document emerging collaborations.Contribution: This research illuminates the contextual challenges associated with sustaining collaborations. The data would be important in informing areas that need strengthening in the work towards integration of THPs and BHPs.
摘要：
背景：强烈建议传统健康从业者（THP）和生物医学健康从业者（BHP）之间的合作，以迎合多元化的医疗保健用户。关于医疗保健服务提供级别的双向合作知之甚少。
目的：绘制有关1978年1月至2023年8月之间THP和BHP之间合作尝试的全球证据。
方法：我们遵循Arksey和O\'Malley框架来进行这次范围审查。两名审稿人独立筛选文章的资格。对ATLAS进行了描述性数字和内容分析。TI22.使用PRISMAScR指南报告了研究结果的叙述性总结。
结果：在8404项筛选研究中，最终审查包括12篇文章中的10项研究。研究来自美国（n=5），非洲(n=2),中国（n=2）和新西兰（n=1）。八项研究报告了双向合作计划的案例研究，而两项研究报道了实验研究。所有合作都发生在生物医学医疗机构内。合作通常需要诸如建立关系，培训所有从业者，协调会议,交叉转介,治疗计划讨论和联合健康促进活动。
结论：这项研究证实，在医疗保健领域，从业者层面的合作很少且很少。需要做更多的工作来将两个系统的整合政策付诸实施。有必要进行更多的研究并记录新出现的合作。贡献：这项研究阐明了与维持合作相关的上下文挑战。这些数据对于告知需要加强THP和BHP整合工作的领域非常重要。
目的：绘制有关1978年1月至2023年8月之间THP和BHP之间合作尝试的全球证据。
方法：我们遵循Arksey和O\'Malley框架来进行这次范围审查。两名审稿人独立筛选文章的资格。对ATLAS进行了描述性数字和内容分析。TI22.使用PRISMAScR指南报告了研究结果的叙述性总结。
结果：在8404项筛选研究中，最终审查包括12篇文章中的10项研究。研究来自美国（n=5），非洲(n=2),中国（n=2）和新西兰（n=1）。八项研究报告了双向合作计划的案例研究，而两项研究报道了实验研究。所有合作都发生在生物医学医疗机构内。合作通常需要诸如建立关系，培训所有从业者，协调会议,交叉转介,治疗计划讨论和联合健康促进活动。
结论：这项研究证实，在医疗保健领域，从业者层面的合作很少且很少。需要做更多的工作来将两个系统的整合政策付诸实施。有必要进行更多的研究并记录新出现的合作。贡献：这项研究阐明了与维持合作相关的上下文挑战。这些数据对于告知需要加强THP和BHP整合工作的领域非常重要。
