Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 180

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

Zwarenstein, M, Reeves, S, Barr, H, Hammick, M, Koppel, I, Atkins, J·2000·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd002213

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 180

Metadata

Authors
Zwarenstein, M., Reeves, S., Barr, H., Hammick, M., Koppel, I., & Atkins, J.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2000-07-24
Issue
1
Pages
CD002213-CD002213
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4239611009
Cited by
180
References
0
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd002213
The paper
Zwarenstein, M., Reeves, S., Barr, H., Hammick, M., Koppel, I., & Atkins, J. (2000). Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002213

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.