The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Implementing a collaborative medicine and pharmacy educational activity in two countries
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: To promote better collaboration for patient care, interprofessional education (IPE) is required in many health professions courses. However, successful IPE implementation at scale can be challenging because of complicated logistics and competing priorities. Implementing across multiple geographies adds further complexity. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the implementation of a full cohort IPE activity for medical and pharmacy students delivered at both the Australian and Malaysian campuses of Monash University. DESIGN: We designed a 150-minute, blended learning activity centred around asthma care for second-year medical and pharmacy students. Student perceptions were measured with a pre- and post-activity survey using the validated ten-item, three-factor, SPICE-R2 instrument. Analysis focused on differences between professions and countries. RESULTS: All second-year medicine (N = 301 in Australia and N = 107 in Malaysia) and pharmacy students (N = 168 in Australia and N = 117 in Malaysia) participated in the learning activity. A total of 326/693 (47%) students participated in the associated research by completing both the pre- and post-activity surveys. The pre-activity survey showed significant differences in four items between medicine and pharmacy students in Australia and two items in Malaysia. Post-activity, we observed significant changes in 8/10 items when the two professions were combined. Specifically, we noted changes across the countries in perceptions of roles and responsibilities for collaborative practice and patient outcomes from collaborative practice. CONCLUSIONS: IPE across different professions and countries is feasible. Positive outcomes in role understanding and perceived patient outcomes are achievable through a context-sensitive, locally driven approach to implementation. Longitudinal experiences may be required to influence perceptions of teamwork and team-based care.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 23
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- 10.1097/MD.0000000000007336 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3109/13561820.2012.715604 · DOI
- 10.3109/13561820.2014.941212 · DOI
- 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1105941 · DOI
- 10.1111/medu.13776 · DOI
- 10.1111/tct.12796 · DOI
- Freeth D, Hammick M, Reeves S, et al. Effective interprofessional education: development, delivery and evaluation [Internet]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2005 [cited 2019 Oct 3]. 18. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470776438.fmatter · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2004.04.042 · DOI
- 10.1186/1472-6920-14-72 · DOI
- 10.1211/ijpp.18.04.0005.x · DOI
- 10.1590/s2175-97902018000417324 · DOI
- 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02492.x · DOI
- 10.1111/nhs.12105 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.apnr.2014.03.002 · DOI
- 10.1080/13561820.2017.1381076 · DOI
- Thistlethwaite JE, 2019, J Interprof Care, 19, 1
- 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.287 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.09.001 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0168863 · DOI
- 10.29060/TAPS.2018-3-1/OA1064 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12909-019-1525-y · DOI
- 10.5688/ajpe80347 · DOI
- 10.1186/1472-6920-14-101 · DOI
- 10.3109/13561820.2014.947360 · DOI
- 10.3109/13561820.2016.1149156 · DOI
- 10.1080/13561820.2017.1398720 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.01.019 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02823.x · DOI
- 10.1080/13561820.2017.1376626 · DOI
- 10.2147/JMDH.S178566 · DOI
- 10.3402/meo.v21.32065 · DOI
- Kent F, 2020, Med Educ
Metadata
- Authors
- Brock, T., Vu, T., Kadirvelu, A., Lee, C. Y., & Kent, F.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Monash University Malaysia (MY)
- Corresponding author
- Brock, Tina
- Venue
- Medical Education Online
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-01-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1780697-1780697
- ISSN
- 1087-2981 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7482896
- OpenAlex
- W3036905009
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 3.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Medical Education Online (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Keywords
- interprofessional education, collaborative practice, asthma care, blended learning, student perceptions, teamwork, team-based care, international implementation, Australia, Malaysia
- MeSH terms
- Asthma, Australia, Education, Medical, Education, Pharmacy, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Malaysia, Patient Care Team, Perception, Students, Medical, Students, Pharmacy, Problem-Based Learning, Professional Role
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