M Zwarenstein1, S Reeves, H Barr, M Hammick, I Koppel, J Atkins. 1. Health Systems Division, Centre for Epidemiological Research in Southern Africa, Medical Research Council, Fransie van Zyl Drive, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505. merrick.zwarenstein@mrc.ac.za
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As patient care becomes more complex, effective collaboration between health and social care professionals is required. However, evidence suggests that these professionals do not collaborate well together. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way forward in this area. OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of IPE interventions compared to education in which the same professions were learning separately from one another. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE (1968 to 1998) and Cinahl (1982 to 1998). We also hand searched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1992 to 1998), the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education Bulletin (1987 to 1998), conference proceedings, the 'grey literature' held by relevant organisations, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of IPE interventions designed to improve collaborative practice between health/social care practitioners and/or the health/well being of patients/clients. The participants included chiropodists/podiatrists, complementary therapists, dentists, dietitians, doctors/physicians, hygienists, psychologists, psychotherapists, midwives, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, speech therapists and/or social workers. The outcomes included objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and reliable (objective or validated subjective) health care process measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. MAIN RESULTS: The total yield from the search strategy was 1042, of which 89 were retained for further consideration. However none of these studies met the inclusion criteria. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding a large body of literature on the evaluation of IPE, these studies lacked the methodological rigour needed to begin to convincingly understand the impact of IPE on professional practice and/or health care outcomes.
BACKGROUND: As patient care becomes more complex, effective collaboration between health and social care professionals is required. However, evidence suggests that these professionals do not collaborate well together. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way forward in this area. OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of IPE interventions compared to education in which the same professions were learning separately from one another. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE (1968 to 1998) and Cinahl (1982 to 1998). We also hand searched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1992 to 1998), the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education Bulletin (1987 to 1998), conference proceedings, the 'grey literature' held by relevant organisations, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of IPE interventions designed to improve collaborative practice between health/social care practitioners and/or the health/well being of patients/clients. The participants included chiropodists/podiatrists, complementary therapists, dentists, dietitians, doctors/physicians, hygienists, psychologists, psychotherapists, midwives, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, speech therapists and/or social workers. The outcomes included objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and reliable (objective or validated subjective) health care process measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. MAIN RESULTS: The total yield from the search strategy was 1042, of which 89 were retained for further consideration. However none of these studies met the inclusion criteria. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding a large body of literature on the evaluation of IPE, these studies lacked the methodological rigour needed to begin to convincingly understand the impact of IPE on professional practice and/or health care outcomes.
Authors: David S Fike; Joseph A Zorek; Anitra A MacLaughlin; Mohammed Samiuddin; Rodney B Young; Eric J MacLaughlin Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Roberto Cardarelli; William Elder; Sarah Weatherford; Karen L Roper; Dana King; Charlotte Workman; Kathryn Stewart; Chong Kim; William Betz Journal: J Interprof Care Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 2.338
Authors: Erin M Spaulding; Francoise A Marvel; Elsen Jacob; Alphie Rahman; Bryan R Hansen; Laura A Hanyok; Seth S Martin; Hae-Ra Han Journal: J Interprof Care Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 2.663