Cited by 18Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The status of interprofessional education (IPE) at regional and global levels – update from 2022 global IPE situational analysis

Khalili, Hossein, Lackie, Kelly, Langlois, Sylvia, da Silva Souza, Camila Mendes, Wetzlmair, Lisa-Christin·2024·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

This short report is based on the 2022 Global IPE Situational Analysis Results e-Book that is available at https://interprofessionalresearch.global/. As an up-to-date global environmental scan of interprofessional education (IPE), this cross-sectional study investigated institutional, administrative, and system-level processes that support IPE program development and implementation globally. Conducted by InterprofessionalResearch.Global (IPR.Global), the survey included 17 quantitative questions that were analyzed at global and regional levels. Three open-text questions were thematically analyzed. In total, 152 institutions from six regions worldwide contributed to this study. Results revealed that only 51.97% of all responding institutions have an established IPE program, with Canada and the USA having the highest (84%) and Africa (26%) having the lowest numbers. Globally, 37.33% of respondents reported no formal leadership positions and 41.33% reported the absence of a designated IPE Director or Coordinator. In addition, IPE funding varies considerably across the world, with 32.65% of institutions reporting no financial support. Over 48.22% of respondents indicated their institutions are rarely or not involved in IPE-related scholarly work or research. The open-text analysis revealed that supportive senior leadership, a culture of collaboration, and recognition of IPE as a strategic direction and/or priority at the institutional level, could foster the successful implementation of IPE. On the other hand, inadequate administrative support, lack of funding, poor attitudes regarding IPE, and limited dedicated time for research, seemed to impair successful implementation of scholarly activities in the field.

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 · 10.1080/13561820.2023.2287023

Cites

2 of 2 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: 19

  1. AIHC Organizational Models Task Force. (2021). Organizational models of interprofessional practice and education in the United States: Results from a national survey 2.0. American Interprofessional Health Collaborative.
  2. American Interprofessional Health Collaborative (AIHC). (2020). Organizational models of Interprofessional practice and education in the United States: Results from a national survey. National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education.
  3. 10.1016/j.xjep.2022.100502 · DOI
  4. 10.3109/13561820.2014.962130 · DOI
  5. 10.3109/13561820.2014.1002908 · DOI
  6. 10.1080/13561820500082529 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.apnr.2014.03.003 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.kjms.2017.12.009 · DOI
  9. 10.1097/MD.0000000000007336 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Khalili, H. (2021). “Developing Interprofessional practitioners through Interprofessional socialization and dual identity development processes”. In D. Joosten-Hagye & H. Khalili (Ed.), Interprofessional education and collaborative practice- micro, meso, and macro approaches across the lifespan textbook. Cognella Academic Publishing
  11. 10.1080/13561820.2021.1981265 · DOI
  12. 10.3109/13561820.2014.895977 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1111/jnu.12184 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.07.010 · DOI
  15. 10.3109/13561821003721329 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.xjep.2021.100484 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/13561820.2019.1612333 · DOI
  18. World Health Organization. (2010) . Framework for action on interprofessional education & collaborative practice. Author.
  19. 10.1016/j.xjep.2022.100553 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Khalili, H., Lackie, K., Langlois, S., da Silva Souza, C. M., & Wetzlmair, L.-C.
Affiliations
  • Winston-Salem State University (US)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • School of Nursing, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
  • University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Corresponding author
Khalili, Hossein
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2023-12-21
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
388-393
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W4390058031
Cited by
18
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5
FWCI
6.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Interprofessional Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
no funding
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
interprofessional education, institutional leadership, senior leadership, administrative support, health professions education
MeSH terms
Interprofessional Education, Attitude, Cross-Sectional Studies, 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