Zwarenstein M, Reeves S, Barr H, Hammick M, Koppel I, Atkins J
Health Systems Division, Centre for Epidemiological Research in Southern Africa, Medical Research Council, Fransie van Zyl Drive, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(1):CD002213. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002213.
As patient care becomes more complex, effective collaboration between health and social care professionals is required. However, evidence suggests that these professionals do not collaborate well together. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way forward in this area.
To assess the usefulness of IPE interventions compared to education in which the same professions were learning separately from one another.
We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE (1968 to 1998) and Cinahl (1982 to 1998). We also hand searched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1992 to 1998), the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education Bulletin (1987 to 1998), conference proceedings, the 'grey literature' held by relevant organisations, and reference lists of articles.
Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of IPE interventions designed to improve collaborative practice between health/social care practitioners and/or the health/well being of patients/clients. The participants included chiropodists/podiatrists, complementary therapists, dentists, dietitians, doctors/physicians, hygienists, psychologists, psychotherapists, midwives, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, speech therapists and/or social workers. The outcomes included objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and reliable (objective or validated subjective) health care process measures.
Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies.
The total yield from the search strategy was 1042, of which 89 were retained for further consideration. However none of these studies met the inclusion criteria.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding a large body of literature on the evaluation of IPE, these studies lacked the methodological rigour needed to begin to convincingly understand the impact of IPE on professional practice and/or health care outcomes.
随着患者护理变得更加复杂,卫生保健和社会护理专业人员之间需要进行有效的协作。然而,有证据表明这些专业人员之间的协作并不理想。跨专业教育(IPE)为该领域提供了一条可能的前进道路。
评估与各专业分别学习的教育相比,IPE干预措施的有效性。
我们检索了Cochrane有效实践与护理组织小组专门注册库、MEDLINE(1968年至1998年)和Cinahl(1982年至1998年)。我们还手工检索了《跨专业护理杂志》(1992年至1998年)、跨专业教育促进中心公报(1987年至1998年)、会议论文集、相关组织持有的“灰色文献”以及文章的参考文献列表。
旨在改善卫生保健/社会护理从业者之间协作实践和/或患者/服务对象健康状况的IPE干预措施的随机试验、前后对照研究和中断时间序列研究。参与者包括足病医生/足科医生、补充疗法治疗师、牙医、营养师、医生、保健员、心理学家、心理治疗师、助产士、护士、药剂师、物理治疗师、职业治疗师、放射技师、言语治疗师和/或社会工作者。结局包括客观测量或自我报告(经过验证的工具)的患者/服务对象结局以及可靠的(客观或经过验证的主观)卫生保健过程指标。
两名评价员独立评估潜在相关研究的合格性。
检索策略的总检索结果为1042项,其中89项被保留以供进一步考虑。然而,这些研究均未符合纳入标准。
尽管发现了大量关于IPE评估的文献,但这些研究缺乏开始令人信服地理解IPE对专业实践和/或卫生保健结局影响所需的方法学严谨性。