
Abstract A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to March 2025 using a structured, expert-validated questionnaire, pilot tested in Kazakh and Russian. The survey was distributed anonymously via Google Forms to all doctors and nurses in a medical organization, with 136 doctors and 225 nurses participating. Consent was obtained electronically. The questionnaire covered demographics, innovation, collaboration, and reflective practices. Data analysis was performed using SPSS and Excel, applying chi-square tests to compare responses between doctors and nurses, with significance set at p < 0.05. Doctors were generally younger and had slightly less experience than nurses, though only age differences were statistically significant. Nurses reported higher engagement in innovation, including introducing new ideas, using alternative methods, and promoting team creativity. In contrast, doctors more often described strong collaboration, knowledge sharing, and reflective team practices. They reported more frequent discussions on effectiveness, problem-solving, and peer feedback. Doctors also more often recognized platforms for interdepartmental and patient interactions. This study revealed key differences between doctors and nurses in innovation, collaboration, and team reflection. Doctors were more engaged in critical discussion and reflection, while nurses showed stronger tendencies toward innovation. Future strategies should focus on fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, expanding innovation opportunities for nurses, and promoting team-based learning to enhance overall healthcare quality.
Healthcare professionals, interdisciplinary collaboration, team reflection, knowledge sharing, organizational culture
Healthcare professionals, interdisciplinary collaboration, team reflection, knowledge sharing, organizational culture
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
