Allvin Renée, Thompson Carl, Edelbring Samuel
Clinical Skills Centre, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
J Interprof Care. 2024 May-Jun;38(3):486-498. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2023.2241505. Epub 2023 Aug 17.
Educating health care professionals for working in interprofessional teams is a key preparation for roles in modern healthcare. Interprofessional teams require members who are competent in their roles. Self-assessment instruments measuring interprofessional competence (IPC) are widely used in educational preparation, but their ability to accurately and reliably measure competence is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to identify variations in the characteristics and use of self-report instruments measuring IPC. Following a systematic search of electronic databases and after applying eligibility criteria, 38 articles were included that describe 8 IPC self-report instruments. A large variation was found in the extent of coverage of IPC core competencies as articulated by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Each instrument's strength of evidence, psychometric performance and uses varied. Rather than measuring competency as "behaviours", they measured indirect proxies for competence, such as attitudes towards core interprofessional competencies. Educators and researchers should identify the most appropriate and highest-performing IPC instruments according to the context in which they will be used.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-vrfjn-v1).
培养医疗保健专业人员在跨专业团队中工作的能力,是其为现代医疗保健角色做准备的关键。跨专业团队需要成员胜任各自的角色。衡量跨专业能力(IPC)的自我评估工具在教育准备中被广泛使用,但其准确可靠地衡量能力的能力尚不清楚。我们进行了一项系统综述,以确定衡量IPC的自我报告工具在特征和使用方面的差异。在对电子数据库进行系统检索并应用纳入标准后,纳入了38篇描述8种IPC自我报告工具的文章。发现跨专业教育协作组织所阐述的IPC核心能力的覆盖范围存在很大差异。每种工具的证据强度、心理测量性能和用途各不相同。它们不是将能力衡量为“行为”,而是衡量能力的间接替代指标,例如对核心跨专业能力的态度。教育工作者和研究人员应根据工具的使用背景,确定最合适、性能最佳的IPC工具。系统综述注册:开放科学框架(https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-vrfjn-v1)。