Cited by 32Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Realist review of interprofessional education for health care students: What works for whom and why

Maddock, Bronwyn, Dārziņš, Pēteris, Kent, Fiona·2023·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

Interprofessional education (IPE) programs, are complex, logistically challenging, and can be expensive to deliver, but these matters are offset by the perceived benefits of IPE. There is little clarity regarding how IPE contributes to the desirable development of collaborative practitioners. To guide educators in the design of IPE programs there is a need to understand the elements that promote optimal learning. A realist review was conducted to identify the mechanisms and resources that contribute to IPE outcomes. Four databases were searched until April 2020 for empirical studies describing mandatory IPE for pre-registration medical, nursing and other health professional students. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Two novel learning design elements were identified; interdependence, where there is a need for genuine contribution of skills and knowledge from the professions learning together to successfully complete tasks, and embodiment, where through being immersed in an authentic scenario, learners feel what it is like to work in their professions. Other observations supported previous research findings such as the importance of skilled facilitators to promote interaction and reflection. Interprofessional interventions incorporating these specific learning design features seem likely to enhance the impact of IPE, thus making the best use of limited institutional resources and student time.

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 · 10.1080/13561820.2022.2039105

Cites

3 of 3 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

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1007/978-3-030-19542-7 · DOI
  2. 10.3109/13561820.2012.715604 · DOI
  3. Allport G, 1954, The nature of prejudice
  4. 10.1080/13561820802565106 · DOI
  5. 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1047756 · DOI
  6. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation Federal Office, 2019, ANMF national school nursing standards for practice RN
  7. Australian Physiotherapy Council, 2016, Physiotherapy Accreditation Standards
  8. Bambini D., 2016, Pharmacy (Basel), 4, 1
  9. 10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-000952rep · DOI
  10. 10.1136/bmjstel-2016-000177 · DOI
  11. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000786 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1186/s13012-015-0237-x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1071/AH09823 · DOI
  14. 10.3928/01484834-20191223-11 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/13561820.2017.1336991 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/13561820.2018.1538110 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/13561820500215202 · DOI
  18. 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1432851 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/medu.13346 · DOI
  20. Kusnoor A., 2019, The AAMC Journal of Teaching and Learning Resources, 15
  21. Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J. & Westmorland, M. (2007). Guidelines for critical review form - Qualitative studies.
  22. 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.07.013 · DOI
  23. 10.5688/ajpe80349 · DOI
  24. 10.5688/ajpe768154 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/tct.12796 · DOI
  26. 10.3109/13561820.2012.673512 · DOI
  27. 10.1186/s41077-017-0041-6 · DOI
  28. Pawson R, 1997, Realistic evaluation
  29. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1016/j.xjep.2017.10.001 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.01.024 · DOI
  32. 10.3109/13561820.2015.985883 · DOI
  33. 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663 · DOI
  34. Reeves S., 2012, Work-A Journal Of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation, 41, 233
  35. 10.1111/medu.12641 · DOI
  36. Vezzali, L. & Stathi, S (Eds.), (2016). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646510 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.pain.2004.03.019 · DOI
  38. 10.5694/mja10.11474 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04045.x · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Maddock, B., Dārziņš, P., & Kent, F.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Melbourne, Australia
Corresponding author
Maddock, Bronwyn
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2022-04-11
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
173-186
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W4223497852
Cited by
32
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Interprofessional Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
no funding associated with the work featured in this article
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, interdependence, embodiment, learning design, facilitators, reflection, medical students, nursing students, health professions students, pre-registration education, interprofessional collaboration
MeSH terms
Interprofessional Education, Curriculum, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Students

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