The implementation of interprofessional education: a scoping review
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Implementation of interprofessional education (IPE) is recognised as challenging, and well-designed programs can have differing levels of success depending on implementation quality. The aim of this review was to summarise the evidence for implementation of IPE, and identify challenges and key lessons to guide faculty in IPE implementation. Methods: Five stage scoping review of methodological characteristics, implementation components, challenges and key lessons in primary studies in IPE. Thematic analysis using a framework of micro (teaching), meso (institutional), and macro (systemic) level education factors was used to synthesise challenges and key lessons. Results: Twenty-seven primary studies were included in this review. Studies were predominantly descriptive in design and implementation components inconsistently reported. IPE was mostly integrated into curricula, optional, involved group learning, and used combinations of interactive and didactic approaches. Micro level implementation factors (socialisation issues, learning context, and faculty development), meso level implementation factors (leadership and resources, administrative processes), and macro level implementation factors (education system, government policies, social and cultural values) were extrapolated. Sustainability was identified as an additional factor in IPE implementation. Conclusion: Lack of complete detailed reporting limits evidence of IPE implementation, however, this review highlighted challenges and yielded key lessons to guide faculty in the implementation of IPE.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742 · see citing works
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215 · see citing works
Lapkin, S., Levett-Jones, T., & Gilligan, C. (2013) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2011.11.006 · Cited by 382 · see citing works
Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review
Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., Goodare, H., Morris, J., Watts, C., & Morley, R. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wickramasinghe, U., Symes, A., & McKinlay, E. (2026) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2026.2664032
- Authors
- Bogossian, F., New, K., George, K., Barr, N., Dodd, N., Hamilton, A. L., Nash, G., Masters, N., Pelly, F., Reid, C., Shakhovskoy, R., & Taylor, J.
- Affiliations
- University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Bogossian, Fiona
- ORCID
- Venue
- Advances in Health Sciences Education
- Published
- 2022-06-10
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 243-277
- ISSN
- 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1677
- PMC
- PMC9186481
- OpenAlex
- W4281870902
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 5.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- University of the Sunshine Coast
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- interprofessional education, implementation barriers, implementation factors, micro, meso and macro levels, faculty development, curriculum integration, sustainability, health professions education, education policy
- MeSH terms
- Interprofessional Education, Curriculum, Educational Status, Faculty, Humans, Leadership
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