Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11279759›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

M Zwarenstein, S Reeves, H Barr, M Hammick, I Koppel, J Atkins

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M ZwarensteinHealth Systems Division, Centre for Epidemiological Research in Southern Africa, Medical Research Council, Fransie van Zyl Drive, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505. merrick.zwarenstein@mrc.ac.za
S Reeves
H Barr
M Hammick
I Koppel
J Atkins

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs 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.

objectivesTo assess the usefulness of IPE interventions compared to education in which the same professions were learning separately from one another. SEARCH STRATEGY: 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. MAIN

resultsThe 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

conclusionsDespite 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.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelInterprofessional RelationsProfessional PracticeAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansPatient Care TeamRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.