Cited by 302Interprofessional Education and CollaborationInnovations in Medical EducationInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

Barriers and enablers that influence sustainable interprofessional education: a literature review

Open access
Lawlis, Tanya Rechael, Anson, Judith, Greenfield, David·2014·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/13561820.2014.895977

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.

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.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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