Table 3.

Meta-analytical relationships between teamwork and clinical performance

	N	k	r	95% CI	80% CR	Q	I2
Overall relationship	1390	31	0.28*	(0.20 to 0.35)	(0.09 to 0.45)	53.7*	46.0
Team characteristics
Professional composition
Interprofessional	1264	27	0.28*	(0.20 to 0.36)	(0.09 to 0.46)	47.1*	48.2
Uniprofessional	126	4	0.28	(−0.01 to 0.52)	(−0.04 to 0.54)	6.5	47.1
Team familiarity
Experimental team	240	10	0.25*	(0.05 to 0.43)	(−0.05 to 0.51)	17.2*	47.2
Real team	1150	21	0.29*	(0.20 to 0.37)	(0.12 to 0.45)	36.2*	45.7
Team size†
Task characteristics
Task type
Routine task	766	14	0.27*	(0.12 to 0.40)	(−0.01 to 0.50)	30.9*	65.0
Non-routine task	609	16	0.29*	(0.20 to 0.39)	(0.16 to 0.42)	20.5	24.6
Methodological factors
Patient realism
Real patient	993	16	0.28*	(0.18 to 0.38)	(0.10 to 0.45)	28.7*	49.3
Simulated patient	397	15	0.28*	(0.13 to 0.41)	(0.02 to 0.50)	25.0*	44.6
Performance measures
Outcome performance	390	4	0.13*	(0.03 to 0.23)	(0.06 to 0.19)	1.3	0.0
Process performance	1000	27	0.30*	(0.21 to 0.39)	(0.10 to 0.49)	45.6*	45.6

*p < .05.

I² = % of total variability in the effect size estimates due to heterogeneity among true effects (vs sampling error).

†Team size was entered as a continuous variable, therefore, no subgroup analyses exist.

CI, confidence interval; CR, credibility interval; K, number of studies; N, cumulative sample size (number of teams); Q, test statistic for residual heterogeneity of the models; r, sample-size weighted correlation.