Cited by 57Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

Faculty development to support interprofessional education in healthcare professions: A realist synthesis

Watkins, Katherine Dolan·2016·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

Interprofessional collaboration is expected of healthcare providers to effect positive patient care experiences, reduce healthcare costs, and improve population health. While interprofessional education (IPE) is essential to graduate collaboration-ready healthcare professionals, faculty have limited experience and expertise in facilitating IPE, slowing adoption of this strategy. Faculty who are expected to develop, implement, and facilitate IPE activities in health professions need support and training to be successful. Faculty development programmes specific to IPE are examined through a comprehensive realist synthesis. The review began by identification of the mechanisms underpinning the intervention and then continued through a search for evidence relevant to the identified mechanisms. From 1,749 citations reviewed, 15 articles and book chapters were synthesised. The findings demonstrate that through the mechanisms-roles and role modelling, valuing diversity, reflection, group process, and knowledge, skills, and attitudes for IPE-positive outcomes can be achieved. Outcomes of increasing capacity and sustainability of IPE programmes, forming networks of individuals concerned with IPE, and evaluating and assessing of outcomes of IPE, may all be achieved through these mechanisms. The contextual factors include attitudes and expectations, programme logistics, leadership, and commitment, which interact with the mechanisms to impact the outcomes. Multiple context-mechanism-outcome configurations were revealed and analysed which help to explain how faculty development for IPE works in varying settings.

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 · 10.1080/13561820.2016.1209466

Cites

41 of 41 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watkins, K. D.
Affiliations
Northern Arizona University (US)
Corresponding author
Watkins, Katherine Dolan
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2016-07-26
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
695-701
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W1044175214
Cited by
57
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4
FWCI
10.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Interprofessional Care (publishedVersion)
  • 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, faculty development, interprofessional collaboration, health professions education, role modeling, valuing diversity, reflection, group process, program sustainability, leadership and commitment, context-mechanism-outcome configurations
MeSH terms
Faculty, Health Occupations, Health Personnel, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, 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