Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28468651›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2017

Perceptions of residents, medical and nursing students about Interprofessional education: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature.

Cora L F Visser, Johannes C F Ket, Gerda Croiset, Rashmi A Kusurkar

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Development of an Integrative Medicine Rotation for Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine Residency.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cora L F VisserResearch in Education Department, VUmc School of Medical Sciences (In affiliation with LEARN! Research Institute for Learning and Education, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. clf.visser@vumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9694-6869
Johannes C F KetMedical Library, VUmc School of Medical Sciences (In affiliation with LEARN! Research Institute for Learning and Education, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerda CroisetMedical Education, VUmc School of Medical Sciences (In affiliation with LEARN! Research Institute for Learning and Education, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rashmi A KusurkarResearch in Education Department, VUmc School of Medical Sciences (In affiliation with LEARN! Research Institute for Learning and Education, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLRijksmuseum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo identify facilitators and barriers that residents, medical and nursing students perceive in their Interprofessional Education (IPE) in a clinical setting with other healthcare students.

methodsA systematic review was carried out to identify the perceptions of medical students, residents and nursing students regarding IPE in a clinical setting. PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC and PsycInfo were searched, using keywords and MeSH terms from each database's inception published prior to June 2014. Interprofessional education involving nursing and medical students and/or residents in IPE were selected by the first author. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion or exclusion and extracted the data.

resultsSixty-five eligible papers (27 quantitative, 16 qualitative and 22 mixed methods) were identified and synthesized using narrative synthesis. Perceptions and attitudes of residents and students could be categorized into 'Readiness for IPE', 'Barriers to IPE' and 'Facilitators of IPE'. Within each category they work at three levels: individual, process/curricular and cultural/organizational. Readiness for IPE at individual level is higher in females, irrespective of prior healthcare experience. At process level readiness for IPE fluctuates during medical school, at cultural level collaboration is jeopardized when groups interact poorly. Examples of IPE-barriers are at individual level feeling intimidated by doctors, at process level lack of formal assessment and at cultural level exclusion of medical students from interaction by nurses. Examples of IPE-facilitators are at individual level affective crises and patient care crises situations that create feelings of urgency, at process level small group learning activities in an authentic context and at cultural level getting acquainted informally. These results are related to a model for learning and teaching, to illustrate the implications for the design of IPE.

conclusionsMost of the uncovered barriers are at the cultural level and most of the facilitators are at the process level. Factors at the individual level need more research.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEducation, MedicalEducation, NursingInterdisciplinary CommunicationInternship and ResidencyFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalStudents, NursingAffective component of learning processBarriersFacilitatorsReadiness for IPE

Identifiers

PMID28468651
PMCPMC5415777
OpenAlexW2610949176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.