Interprofessional Education and Practice Guide No. 3: Evaluating interprofessional education
Abstract
We have witnessed an ongoing increase in the publication of evaluation work aimed at measuring the processes and outcomes related to a range of interprofessional education (IPE) activities and initiatives. Systematic reviews of IPE have, however, suggested that while the quality of evaluation studies is improving, there continues to be a number of empirical weaknesses with this work. In an effort to enhance the quality of IPE evaluation studies, this guide provides a series of ideas and suggestions about how to undertake a robust evaluation of an IPE event. The guide presents a series of key lessons for colleagues to help them undertake a good quality IPE evaluation, covering a range of methodological, practical and ethical issues. These include: the formation of evaluation questions, use of evaluation models and theoretical perspectives, advice about the selection of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods evaluation designs, managing evaluation resources, and ideas about disseminating evaluation results to the broader IPE community. It is anticipated that this guide will assist IPE colleagues in undertaking high-quality evaluation in order to provide valuable evidence for different stakeholders, and also help inform the scholarly knowledge for the interprofessional field.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The findings are consistent with existing IPE and simulation-based IPE literature showing that interprofessional learning activities can support students' perceptions of teamwork, communication, role understanding, and collaborative practice.
“These findings are consistent with existing IPE and simulation-based IPE literature showing that interprofessional learning activities can support students' perceptions of teamwork, communication, role understanding, and collaborative practice”
From Ten years of student-reported outcomes from simulation-based interprofessional education in an underrepresented academic setting (2026) · cites this paper as Reeves et al., 2015
The findings extend the discussion to a minority-serving academic health sciences context that remains less frequently represented in the published IPE literature.
“while extending this discussion to a minority-serving academic health sciences context that remains less frequently represented in the published IPE literature (Morrow et al., 2023;Reeves et al., 2015;Zhang et al., 2011).”
From Ten years of student-reported outcomes from simulation-based interprofessional education in an underrepresented academic setting (2026) · cites this paper as Reeves et al., 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Costa Marion, A. D., Pereira, L. C., & Lucia Moura Pinho, D. (2025) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2022.2147153 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Ojo, O. A., Arciaga, P., Jama, A., Pan, D., & Bazargan-Hejazi, S. (2026) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2026.2707645
- Authors
- Reeves, S., Boet, S., Zierler, B., & Kitto, S.
- Affiliations
- St George's, University of London (GB)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reeves, Scott
- Venue
- Journal of Interprofessional Care
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-02-11
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 305-312
- ISSN
- 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9567
- OpenAlex
- W2044327846
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 31
- FWCI
- 42.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Interprofessional Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
- Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Keywords
- interprofessional education, evaluation design, evaluation questions, evaluation model, mixed methods evaluation, qualitative evaluation, quantitative evaluation, evaluation ethics, dissemination of evaluation results, assessment resources, health professions education
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Cooperative Behavior, Health Personnel, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Learning, Teaching, Program Evaluation
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