PURPOSE: The purpose of this mixed-method study was to explore students' attitudes, knowledge, experience, and receptiveness to interprofessional education (IPE) in the health sciences. METHODS: An embedded mixed-method design was used whereby 29 students from 5 health sciences schools (Law, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Social Work) were administered The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Quantitative results indicated that there was no significant difference regarding readiness for interprofessional learning among the different academic disciplines. Qualitative interviews identified that students were exposed to two types of interprofessional learning experiences: curricular IPE and clinical interprofessional training (IPT). The majority of interprofessional experiences occurred through internships, student activities, and community service opportunities, not in the classroom. The study findings also uncovered lost opportunities for IPE, characteristics of successful interprofessional learning, and students' personal and organizational barriers to IPE. CONCLUSION: Results have implications for creating and implementing IPE and IPT experiences for students in the health sciences. Specifically, it is important to bring these students together as a collaborative team, both within the classroom and within a clinical setting. This will require a unique type of curriculum and team of instructors.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this mixed-method study was to explore students' attitudes, knowledge, experience, and receptiveness to interprofessional education (IPE) in the health sciences. METHODS: An embedded mixed-method design was used whereby 29 students from 5 health sciences schools (Law, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Social Work) were administered The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Quantitative results indicated that there was no significant difference regarding readiness for interprofessional learning among the different academic disciplines. Qualitative interviews identified that students were exposed to two types of interprofessional learning experiences: curricular IPE and clinical interprofessional training (IPT). The majority of interprofessional experiences occurred through internships, student activities, and community service opportunities, not in the classroom. The study findings also uncovered lost opportunities for IPE, characteristics of successful interprofessional learning, and students' personal and organizational barriers to IPE. CONCLUSION: Results have implications for creating and implementing IPE and IPT experiences for students in the health sciences. Specifically, it is important to bring these students together as a collaborative team, both within the classroom and within a clinical setting. This will require a unique type of curriculum and team of instructors.