An exploration of faculty perspectives towards interprofessional education and collaborative practice during international electives in health professions training institutions in Africa
Open accessAbstract
Background: Faculty perspectives are key drivers of learning during international electives (IEs). However, in Africa, there is limited literature on these perspectives on interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP) during IEs. Therefore, this study explored faculty perspectives toward IPECP within an international elective context from selected African institutions. Methods: This was an exploratory qualitative study. The study participants included faculty from four health professional training universities in Africa. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Common codes were identified and grouped to create subthemes and major themes. Results: Four themes were identified: (i) The importance of IPECP during IEs, (ii) Approaches to IPECP during IEs, (iii) Perceived key barriers, and (iv) Perceived institutional support for IPECP during IEs. Most of the participants perceived IEs as a platform that can be used to cultivate IPECP with a multicultural perspective while promoting cross-border partnerships to advance health care. Suggested teaching approaches included case studies, joint clinical ward rounds, and simulations, among others, with an openness to having an online, blended, or physical mode of delivery. A framework to guide the implementation of IPECP during IEs was considered important, and most participants thought that their institutions had the infrastructure to support IPECP-IEs. Conclusions: Faculty reported enabling perspectives of IPECP during IEs, emphasizing the need for a framework to guide and structure implementation. IPECP-IEs were perceived as a unique platform to cultivate IPECP skills with a multicultural component.
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 3
- Authors
- Nawagi, F., Munabi, I. G., Vyt, A., Kiguli, S., & Mubuuke, A. G.
- Affiliations
- Makerere University (UG)
- Ghent University
- Venue
- Journal of Global Health Reports
- Published
- 2023-10-04
- Volume
- 7
- ISSN
- 2399-1623 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387341923
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Global Health Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research
- U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
- National Institutes of Health
- Fogarty International Center
- 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
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
- Keywords
- international electives, faculty perspectives, health professions education, Africa, cross-border partnerships, multicultural education, barriers to interprofessional education, institutional support, simulation-based training, blended 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