Barriers and enablers that influence sustainable interprofessional education: a literature review
Open accessAbstract
The effective incorporation of interprofessional education (IPE) within health professional curricula requires the synchronised and systematic collaboration between and within the various stakeholders. Higher education institutions, as primary health education providers, have the capacity to advocate and facilitate this collaboration. However, due to the diversity of stakeholders, facilitating the pedagogical change can be challenging and complex, and brings a degree of uncertainty and resistance. This review, through an analysis of the barriers and enablers investigates the involvement of stakeholders in higher education IPE through three primary stakeholder levels: Government and Professional, Institutional and Individual. A review of eight primary databases using 21 search terms resulted in 40 papers for review. While the barriers to IPE are widely reported within the higher education IPE literature, little is documented about the enablers of IPE. Similarly, the specific identification and importance of enablers for IPE sustainability and the dual nature of some barriers and enablers have not been previously reported. An analysis of the barriers and enablers of IPE across the different stakeholder levels reveals five key "fundamental elements" critical to achieving sustainable IPE in higher education curricula.
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.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stamer, T., Steinhäuser, J., & Flägel, K. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/43311 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Bartholomew, N., McKillop, A., & Barr, O. (2026) · Journal of Interprofessional Care · doi:10.1080/13561820.2025.2582054 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lawlis, T. R., Anson, J., & Greenfield, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Canberra (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Lawlis, Tanya Rechael
- Venue
- Journal of Interprofessional Care
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-03-13
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 305-310
- ISSN
- 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9567
- OpenAlex
- W2029543026
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 3.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Interprofessional Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
- University of Canberra Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, 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, barriers and facilitators, stakeholder collaboration, higher education institutions, institutional change, resistance to change
- MeSH terms
- Cooperative Behavior, Curriculum, Diffusion of Innovation, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Interprofessional Relations, Interdisciplinary Communication
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