Oudbier Janique, Verheijck Etienne, van Diermen Denise, Tams Jan, Bramer Jos, Spaai Gerard
Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Dec 19;24(1):1492. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06466-z.
In order to foster effective collaboration and improve healthcare outcomes, students from multiple health professions engage in interprofessional education (IPE), learning together and from each other. Existing literature explores the effectiveness of IPE within health sciences but presents varied findings. The purpose of this study is to The effectiveness of IPE is defined as the four levels of training evaluation delineated by Kirkpatrick: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Affecting factors are defined as elements directly influencing IPE effectiveness, while intermediating factors are influenced by these affecting factors, subsequently impacting overall IPE effectiveness.
A state-of-the-art review was conducted using medical databases PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. Search terms included: (interprofessional learning) OR (interprofessional education) AND (higher education) within the time frame of 2017 to 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for quasi-experimental and qualitative studies. Study features were evaluated using a coding scheme, and qualitative analysis of the included studies was performed.
Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria after screening. Qualitative analysis revealed four affecting factors: 1) Community-based learning approach, 2) Problem-based learning approach, 3) Experiential learning approach, and 4) Technology-based learning approach. Intermediating factors included student and team characteristics, such as boundary crossing, team leadership, readiness, educational discipline and background, and interprofessional attitudes. Additionally, educational design characteristics, like intervention duration, facilitation, and authenticity of learning experiences, served as intermediating factors. Organizational characteristics, such as organizational culture and logistics, were identified as further intermediating factors.
This study provides insight on factors affecting and intermediating IPE effectiveness, vital in the design of IPE programs. Based on the findings we formulated six practical tips to enhance IPE effectiveness.
为促进有效协作并改善医疗保健成果，来自多个卫生专业的学生参与跨专业教育（IPE），共同学习并相互学习。现有文献探讨了IPE在健康科学领域的有效性，但结果各异。本研究的目的是将IPE的有效性定义为柯克帕特里克所描述的四个培训评估层次：反应、学习、行为和结果。影响因素被定义为直接影响IPE有效性的因素，而中介因素受这些影响因素的影响，进而影响IPE的整体有效性。
使用医学数据库PubMed、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Web of Science和Scopus进行了一项最新综述。检索词包括：2017年至2022年时间范围内的（跨专业学习）或（跨专业教育）以及（高等教育）。使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的准实验和定性研究清单评估纳入研究的方法学质量。使用编码方案评估研究特征，并对纳入研究进行定性分析。
筛选后有54项研究符合纳入标准。定性分析揭示了四个影响因素：1）基于社区的学习方法，2）基于问题的学习方法，3）体验式学习方法，4）基于技术的学习方法。中介因素包括学生和团队特征，如跨界、团队领导能力、准备情况、教育学科和背景以及跨专业态度。此外，教育设计特征，如干预持续时间、促进作用和学习体验的真实性，也作为中介因素。组织特征，如组织文化和后勤，被确定为进一步的中介因素。
本研究提供了关于影响和中介IPE有效性的因素的见解，这对IPE项目的设计至关重要。基于研究结果，我们制定了六个提高IPE有效性的实用技巧。
