Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29643742›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2018

Effects of interprofessional education for medical and nursing students: enablers, barriers and expectations for optimizing future interprofessional collaboration - a qualitative study.

Sabine Homeyer, Wolfgang Hoffmann, Peter Hingst, Roman F Oppermann, Adina Dreier-Wolfgramm

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
24.8field-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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 197 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. ONC-Call: A Hands-On Workshop of Emergent Spine Radiation Therapy for Multidisciplinary Trainees.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sabine Homeyer1Institute for Community Medicine, Department Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Ellernholzstr. 1-2, 17487 Greifswald, Germany.
Wolfgang Hoffmann1Institute for Community Medicine, Department Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Ellernholzstr. 1-2, 17487 Greifswald, Germany.
Peter Hingst2Nursing Board, University Medicine Greifswald, Fleischmannstraße 8, 17475 Greifswald, Germany.
Roman F Oppermann3Department Nursing, Health and Administration, University of Applied Science Neubrandenburg, Brodaerstr. 2, 17033 Neubrandenburg, Germany.
Adina Dreier-Wolfgramm1Institute for Community Medicine, Department Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Ellernholzstr. 1-2, 17487 Greifswald, Germany.
Universitätsmedizin Greifswald · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo ensure high quality patient care an effective interprofessional collaboration between healthcare professionals is required. Interprofessional education (IPE) has a positive impact on team work in daily health care practice. Nevertheless, there are various challenges for sustainable implementation of IPE. To identify enablers and barriers of IPE for medical and nursing students as well as to specify impacts of IPE for both professions, the 'Cooperative academical regional evidence-based Nursing Study in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania' (Care-N Study M-V) was conducted. The aim is to explore, how IPE has to be designed and implemented in medical and nursing training programs to optimize students' impact for IPC.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted using the Delphi method and included 25 experts. Experts were selected by following inclusion criteria: (a) ability to answer every research question, one question particularly competent, (b) interdisciplinarity, (c) sustainability and (d) status. They were purposely sampled. Recruitment was based on existing collaborations and a web based search.

resultsThe experts find more enablers than barriers for IPE between medical and nursing students. Four primary arguments for IPE were mentioned: (1) development and promotion of interprofessional thinking and acting, (2) acquirement of shared knowledge, (3) promotion of beneficial information and knowledge exchange, and (4) promotion of mutual understanding. Major barriers of IPE are the coordination and harmonization of the curricula of the two professions. With respect to the effects of IPE for IPC, experts mentioned possible improvements on (a) patient level and (b) professional level. Experts expect an improved patient-centered care based on better mutual understanding and coordinated cooperation in interprofessional health care teams. To sustainably implement IPE for medical and nursing students, IPE needs endorsement by both, medical and nursing faculties.

conclusionIn conclusion, IPE promotes interprofessional cooperation between the medical and the nursing profession. Skills in interprofessional communication and roles understanding will be primary preconditions to improve collaborative patient-centered care. The impact of IPE for patients and caregivers as well as for both professions now needs to be more specifically analysed in prospective intervention studies.

Indexed as

Education, medical, graduateEducation, nursingEducation researchInterprofessional educationQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29643742
PMCPMC5891914
OpenAlexW2803283280

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.