CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 212Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interprofessional Education for Whom? — Challenges and Lessons Learned from Its Implementation in Developed Countries and Their Application to Developing Countries: A Systematic Review

Open access
Sunguya, Bruno F., Hinthong, Woranich, Jimba, Masamine, Yasuoka, Junko·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0096724PMC PMC4014542
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence is available on the potential efficacy of interprofessional education (IPE) to foster interprofessional cooperation, improve professional satisfaction, and improve patient care. While the intention of the World Health Organization (WHO) is to implement IPE in all countries, evidence comes from developed countries about its efficiency, challenges, and barriers to planning and implementing IPE. We therefore conducted this review to examine challenges of implementing IPE to suggest possible pathways to overcome the anticipated challenges in developing countries. METHODS: We searched for literatures on IPE in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases. We examined challenges or barriers and initiatives to overcome them so as to suggest methods to solve the anticipated challenges in developing countries. We could not conduct a meta-analysis because of the qualitative nature of the research question and the data; instead we conducted a meta-narrative of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 40 out of 2,146 articles were eligible for analyses in the current review. Only two articles were available from developing countries. Despite the known benefits of IPE, a total of ten challenges or barriers were common based on the retrieved evidence. They included curriculum, leadership, resources, stereotypes and attitudes, variety of students, IPE concept, teaching, enthusiasm, professional jargons, and accreditation. Out of ten, three had already been reported in developing countries: IPE curriculum, resource limitations, and stereotypes. CONCLUSION: This study found ten important challenges on implementing IPE. They are curriculum, leadership, resources, stereotypes, students' diversity, IPE concept, teaching, enthusiasm, professional jargons, and accreditation. Although only three of them are already experienced in developing countries, the remaining seven are potentially important for developing countries, too. By knowing these challenges and barriers in advance, those who implement IPE programs in developing countries will be much more prepared, and can enhance the program's potential success.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0096724

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Diagram of information flow through phases of systematic review.
Figure 1 Diagram of information flow through phases of systematic review.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Show all 85 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. M Hammick, 2002, Systematic reviews of evaluations of interprofessional education: results and work in progress, J Interprof Care, 16, 80

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 210

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sunguya, B. F., Hinthong, W., Jimba, M., & Yasuoka, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Mahidol University (TH)
Corresponding author
Yasuoka, Junko
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-05-08
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
e96724
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0096724
PMC
PMC4014542
OpenAlex
W1991408830
Cited by
212
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences
  • University of Health and Allied Sciences
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, implementation barriers, developing countries, interprofessional collaboration, curriculum development, leadership, resource constraints, occupational stereotypes, student diversity, accreditation, health professions education
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Developing Countries, Health Personnel, Humans, Developed Countries

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