Interprofessional Education Context Analysis of a University in Ghana
Open accessAbstract
The benefits of interprofessional education, including helping health professionals to develop good interpersonal relations with other professionals, improved acquisition and retention of competencies, improved patient care outcomes, cost-effective care, and improved healthcare professional job satisfaction, outweigh the inputs needed to develop and implement it. The processes for developing and implementing IPE program vary from institution to institution because of the strong influence of the context on IPE program. A context analysis is therefore paramount in developing IPE program. This study presents the findings of a context analysis of a university, using qualitative descriptive research methods supported by semi-structured interviews. A total of 25 participants participated in this study: ten (10) academics, two (2) support staff, and 13 students distributed across six programs were interviewed in this study. We found that facilitators such as an existing interdisciplinary module across all health professions, the interprofessional nature of the student population, existing collaborative practices, and the availability of resources for IPE give the university an advantage. Meanwhile, challenges such as insufficient personnel, limited resources, and a lack of an IPE policy or program impede the development and implementation of IPE at the university. Leveraging support from the Africa Interprofessional Education Network and other universities that have implemented the IPE program will be essential to developing and implementing the program. Finally, regulatory bodies should engage stakeholders in inserting IPE competencies as a requirement followed by accreditation after professional education programs in Ghana.
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
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.
- Authors
- Bening, A., Mogre, V., Heymans, Y., & Dela Christmals, C.
- Affiliations
- North-West University (ZA)
- University for Development Studies (GH)
- Kintampo Health Research Centre (GH)
- Venue
- Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan
- Publisher
- State University of Malang (UM)
- Published
- 2025-12-30
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 309-317
- ISSN
- 0215-9643 (ISSN-L)
- 2442-8655
- OpenAlex
- W7133237418
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- 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, contextual analysis, health professions education, University of Ghana, barriers and facilitators, interdisciplinary curriculum, collaborative practice, stakeholder engagement
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