The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Factors to consider in planning a tailored undergraduate interprofessional education and collaborative practice curriculum: A scoping review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Heath care students need to be practice-ready at qualification. Increased interest in and drive towardsmore collaborative practice necessitate consideration of teaching and learning factors unique to learning settings, toplan a tailored interprofessional education and collaborative practice curriculum, based on empirical findings.Method: The Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodology guided this study. Eight online databases weresearched, with 72 articles included for full review. Charted data, analysed quantitatively, included year, context, studydesign and population. The four-dimensional curriculum framework model, consisting of future health care needs,interprofessional competencies, methods of teaching and institutional support, directed the deductive analysis.Results: Interprofessional education is best presented as a tailored curriculum, i.e. fitting the specific institution's needs,based on formal rather than a voluntary participation and presented longitudinally. Buy-in from institutional managementassists in overcoming barriers related to resourcing and staff participation.Conclusion: Successful interprofessional education and collaborative practice curricula are dependent on an interplayof various factors such as specific professions involved, future healthcare needs of the country, expected capabilities andcompetencies of graduates, content and teaching methods, and available resources. Facilitators, as well as policymakersof academic and clinical institutions, could benefit from the synthesized evidence.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Pitout, H., Adams, F., Casteleijn, D., & Du Toit, S. H.
- Affiliations
- Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (ZA)
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
- University of the Free State (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Pitout, Hanlie
- Venue
- South African Journal of Occupational Therapy
- Publisher
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Published
- 2022-05-06
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 78-95
- ISSN
- 0038-2337 (ISSN-L)
- 2310-3833
- OpenAlex
- W4285119780
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- South African Journal of Occupational Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- 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, interprofessional competencies, institutional support, teaching methods, curriculum implementation challenges, health professions education, practice readiness
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