Cited by 3Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

Launching a new interprofessional education programme in a rural setting: a qualitative study of the first two years

Open access
McKinlay, Eileen, Brown, Melanie, Beckingsale, Louise, Doolan-Noble, Fiona, Garnett, Amanda, Pullon, Susan·2026·The Journal of Primary Health Care

Abstract

Introduction: Delivery of interprofessional education (IPE) in rural settings can support pre-registration health sciences students to achieve interprofessional collaborative practice (teamwork) competencies. It can also grow the rural workforce with previous students recommending the programme to their peers and some choosing to work in a rural workplace as graduates. Launching and implementing a rural IPE programme in a new location is challenging, even when comparable IPE models exist in other settings. Aim: We aimed to evaluate the implementation of a new rural IPE programme in Greymouth, New Zealand. Methods: Qualitative evaluation data were collected through several rounds of interviews during the first 2 years of the programme. The interviews included students, stakeholders (Education Operations Group – the tertiary education providers who sent students, clinical placement providers, community stakeholders), and local programme staff. Focus group and interview data were explored using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified, each with subthemes: (1) allow sufficient lead-in time, (2) ensure there is time to bed down, and (3) undertake location-specific quality improvement. These themes pointed to aspects that were important when implementing a new IPE programme, particularly to enable development of a local flavour. Discussion: Rural IPE programmes are complex, expensive to establish, and difficult to sustain, but such programmes may be key to increasing the rural workforce. It is critical to have local staff who can work effectively with all the stakeholder groups, all of whom are important to continuing the programme.

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 · 10.1071/hc24109

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
McKinlay, E., Brown, M., Beckingsale, L., Doolan-Noble, F., Garnett, A., & Pullon, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • AUniversity of Otago, Centre for Interprofessional Education, 362 Leith Street, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.
Corresponding author
McKinlay, Eileen
Venue
The Journal of Primary Health Care
Published
2025-08-06
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
11-20
ISSN
1172-6156 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415544236
Cited by
3
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Primary Health Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
interprofessional education, rural health workforce, program implementation, interprofessional collaboration, stakeholder engagement, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Interprofessional Education, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Interviews as Topic, New Zealand, Program Evaluation, Focus Groups, Rural Health Services, Qualitative Research

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