Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute & Centre for Faculty Development, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
J Interprof Care. 2010 May;24(3):230-41. doi: 10.3109/13561820903163405.
Over the past decade systematic reviews of interprofessional education (IPE) have provided a more informed understanding of the effects of this type of education. This paper contributes to this literature by reporting an update of a Cochrane systematic review published in this journal ten years ago (Zwarenstein et al., 1999 ). In updating this initial review, our current work involved searches of a number of electronic databases from 1999-2006, as well as reference lists, books, conference proceedings and websites. Like the previous review, only studies which employed randomized controlled trials, controlled-before and-after-studies and interrupted time series studies of IPE, and that reported validated professional practice and health care outcomes, were included. While the first review found no studies which met its inclusion criteria, the updated review located six IPE studies. This paper aims to add to the ongoing development of evidence for IPE. Despite some useful progress being made in relation to strengthening the evidence base for IPE, the paper concludes by stressing that further rigorous mixed method studies of IPE are needed to provide a greater clarity of IPE and its effects on professional practice and patient/client care.
在过去的十年中，系统评价的跨专业教育（IPE）提供了更深入的了解这种类型的教育的效果。本文通过报告一个更新的 Cochrane 系统评价在这个杂志十年前发表（Zwarenstein 等人，1999 年）。在更新本初评阅时，我们目前的工作涉及从 1999 年到 2006 年的一些电子数据库的搜索，以及参考书目，书籍，会议记录和网站。与以前的审查一样，只有研究采用随机对照试验，对照前后研究和中断时间序列研究的 IPE，并报告验证专业实践和卫生保健结果，才被包括在内。虽然第一次审查没有发现符合其纳入标准的研究，但更新的审查发现了六项 IPE 研究。本文旨在为 IPE 的不断发展提供证据。尽管在加强 IPE 的证据基础方面取得了一些有益的进展，但本文最后强调，需要进一步严格的混合方法研究 IPE，以提供更清晰的 IPE 及其对专业实践和患者/客户护理的影响。
