Cited by 9Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationTeam Dynamics and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High and low functioning team-based pre-licensure interprofessional learning: an observational evaluation

Brewer, Margo L., Flavell, Helen·2021·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

Interprofessional education (IPE) is embedded in many health professional training programs, often with a focus on collaborative teamwork. Most studies into whether IPE delivers the desired collaborative teamwork capabilities has tended to rely on short term, self-assessed changes in learners' attitudes, knowledge and skills. This study adopted overt ethnographic observation to understand how a convenience sample of students behave in groups during interprofessional team-based clinical placements. Interprofessional student teams were observed by two independent observers on eight occasions (a total of 720 hours) across three sites. Thematic analysis of the observational data indicates that student teams fell into two categories: higher and lower functioning. Higher functioning teams were observed using humor to build rapport, reduce tension and express humility, and evidenced a greater emphasis on shared client goals. In contrast, lower functioning teams were more formal, with no evidence of humor and less interaction. The higher functioning teams, therefore, not only demonstrated greater interprofessional collaboration they also appeared to have higher levels of psychological safety. Participants in the higher functioning teams also demonstrated mutual trust and confidence and took more risks, often speaking up to provide suggestions, share knowledge and skills, and seek or offer feedback. The results suggest that further explicit training in, and assessment of, psychological safety in IPE needs to be undertaken.

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 · 10.1080/13561820.2020.1778652

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001136 · DOI
  2. Anderson L., 2008, The SAGE dictionary of qualitative management research, 151
  3. 10.1111/nuf.12084 · DOI
  4. 10.1186/1472-6947-11-32 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/BF00138871 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1080/13561820.2016.1220930 · DOI
  7. Brewer M. L., 2018, International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19, 169
  8. 10.1080/13561820.2017.1308318 · DOI
  9. Brewer M. L., 2013, Journal of Allied Health, 42, 45E
  10. Bryman A., 2012, Social research methods
  11. 10.3109/13561820.2015.1070134 · DOI
  12. 10.3109/13561820.2014.940038 · DOI
  13. Cresswell J. W., 2012, Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research
  14. Delamont S., 2007, Qualitative research practice, 205
  15. Delizonna L., 2017, Harvard Business Review, 2
  16. Edmondson A. C., 2019, The fearless organization: Creating psychological; safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth
  17. 10.3109/13561820.2013.807224 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/j.jcrc.2007.12.005 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/jocn.12198 · DOI
  21. 10.3402/meo.v20.26691 · DOI
  22. 10.1136/qshc.2003.008425 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04339.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01271.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.4135/9781412957397 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1080/13561820500083550 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/medu.12290 · DOI
  28. 10.1590/1807-57622014.0092 · DOI
  29. 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663 · DOI
  30. 10.1002/9781444325027 · DOI
  31. 10.1177/1059601118756554 · DOI
  32. 10.2147/JMDH.S76773 · DOI
  33. 10.3109/13561820.2016.1169262 · DOI
  34. 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00719.1 · DOI
  35. 10.1080/13561820.2017.1408576 · DOI
  36. Yin R. K., 2009, Case study research: Design and methods
  37. 10.3109/13561820.2014.982789 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Brewer, M. L., & Flavell, H.
Affiliations
Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Brewer, Margo L.
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2020-07-02
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
538-545
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W3039143437
Cited by
9
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.00
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
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
interprofessional education, team-based learning, psychological safety, interprofessional collaboration, clinical practicum, team functioning, trust and confidence, feedback, risk-taking
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Learning, Patient Care Team

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