Cited by 112Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

Involving service users in interprofessional education narrowing the gap between theory and practice

Cooper, Helen, Spencer-Dawe, Eileen·2006·Journal of Interprofessional Care

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

Crossref · 10.1080/13561820601029767

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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)
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
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