Involving service users in interprofessional education narrowing the gap between theory and practice
Abstract
Calls for greater collaboration between professionals in health and social care have led to pressures to move toward interprofessional education (IPE) at both pre- and post-registration levels. Whilst this move has evolved out of "common sense" demands, such a multiple systems approach to education does not fit easily into existing traditional educational frameworks and there is, as yet, no proven theoretical framework to guide its development. A research study of an IPE intervention at the University of Liverpool in the UK drew on complexity theory to conceptualize the intervention and to evaluate its impact on a group of approximately 500 students studying physiotherapy, medicine, occupational therapy, nursing and social work. The intervention blended a multidisciplinary (non-interactive) plenary with self-directed e-learning and a series of interdisciplinary (interactive) workshops. Two evaluations took place: the first when the workshops were facilitated by trained practitioners; the second when the practitioners co-facilitated with trained service users. This paper reports findings from the second evaluation which focused on narrowing the gap between theory and practice. A multi-stakeholder evaluation was used including: students' reflective narratives, a focus group with practitioners and individual semi-structured interviews with service users. Findings showed that service users can make an important contribution to IPE for health and social care students in the early stages of their training. By exposure to a service user perspective, first year students can begin to learn and apply the principles of team work, to place the service user at the centre of the care process, to make connections between theory and "real life" experiences, and to narrow the gap between theory and practice. Findings also revealed benefits for facilitators and service users.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In other sessions, patients were cofacilitators with practitioners.
“In other sessions, patients were cofacilitators with practitioners.23”
From Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
Students expressed reservations that they were only getting the view of one person, which could lead to a biased perspective.
“Students expressed reservations that they were only getting the view of one person, which could lead to a biased perspective.23”
From Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 112
- Authors
- Cooper, H., & Spencer-Dawe, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- ORCID
- Cooper, Helen
- Venue
- Journal of Interprofessional Care
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 603-617
- ISSN
- 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9567
- OpenAlex
- W2144068109
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 4.48
- 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, service user involvement, theory-practice gap, health and social care education, complexity theory, interdisciplinary workshop, online learning, teamwork, multi-stakeholder evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Cooperative Behavior, Education, Professional, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Patient Satisfaction, Models, Educational, Problem-Based Learning
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