Cited by 2Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

Sustainability of Interprofessional Education: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Open access
Oliveira, Nathalia Hanany Silva de, Oliveira, Renata Fonsêca Sousa de, Soares, Juliana Pontes, Castro, Janete Lima de·2024·JMIR Research Protocols

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) is an approach that can improve health care quality, contribute to the qualification of health care professionals, and train undergraduate students. Although this strategy has made significant progress in the last decade, integration, sustainability, and institutional growth are still priorities worldwide. Thus, maintaining strategies is essential for their full development and evolution. Objective: This study aimed to identify discussions about the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both). Methods: The scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. This scoping review protocol follows the JBI Reviewers’ Manual, with 6 stages: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; data extraction and coding; analysis and interpretation of results; and consultation with stakeholders. Two independent and blind reviewers will evaluate and select studies available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish based on the eligibility criteria. Searches will be conducted on LILACS, Embase, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. The main research question is as follows: What have been the sustainability strategies for IPE actions? This scoping review will incorporate studies (empirical or theoretical-reflective) that address strategies or actions (or both) for IPE sustainability. They must present a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach and be available in full text. Data on strategies or actions for IPE sustainability will be extracted and inserted into a spreadsheet for analysis. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative analysis will identify meanings and patterns through thematic analysis. Thus, the aim is to present the compiled findings in tables and charts. Results: The database search was conducted on March 22, 2024. In April and May 2024, duplicate studies were excluded. From July to November 2024, study selection will be carried out. In December 2024, data extraction and tabulation will take place, as well as consultation with stakeholders. The aim is to publish the results in scientific journals in January 2025. Conclusions: This protocol will guide this scoping review to identify discussions on the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both); summarize the definitions and institutions that develop or promote IPE; and present the main recommendations for the area under study. Additionally, possible research gaps can be identified to guide future studies. This review will shed light on existing knowledge gaps and the current state of research, which could provide support for future research, programs, and policy responses to foster collaboration and interprofessional practice and, consequently, improve the quality of user care. This information will be useful in supporting decision-making by government officials, managers, teachers, facilitators, and students in the implementation, maintenance, and development of IPE. Trial Registration: Open Science Framework 5VNJS; https://osf.io/5vnjs/ International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60763

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 · 10.2196/60763

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Oliveira, N. H. S. D., Oliveira, R. F. S. D., Soares, J. P., & Castro, J. L. D.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de Roraima (BR)
Corresponding author
Oliveira, Nathalia Hanany Silva de
Venue
JMIR Research Protocols
Published
2024-12-09
Volume
13
Pages
e60763
ISSN
1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403785525
Cited by
2
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Ministério da Saúde
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
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, sustainability strategy, institutional sustainability, health professions education, interprofessional collaboration, quality of care, sustainability of educational programs, institutional growth, research gaps, stakeholder consultation
MeSH terms
Interprofessional Education, Scoping Reviews As Topic, Scoping Reviews as Topic, Health Personnel, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic

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