ArticleBMC medical education2019
Does PBL deliver constructive collaboration for students in interprofessional tutorial groups?
Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Unveiling the ultimate advantage: a meta-analysis of 3D visualization and problem-based learning in orthopedic education.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Use of problem-based learning in orthopaedics education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the impact of a blended interprofessional education course on students' attitudes towards interprofessional education: a pre-post study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Oral health knowledge, attitudes, and practices among female public health and nutrition university students in Qatar.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Application of PBL combined with traditional teaching in the Immunochemistry course.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Future physicians' behavioral intentions towards collaborative practice - a qualitative study on polish final-year medical students guided by the theory of planned behavior.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Does Online Interprofessional Case-Based Learning Facilitate Collaborative Knowledge Construction?Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- A Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Case Study to Promote Interprofessional Learning (IPL) Between Audiology and Biomedical Science Students in Higher Education.British journal of biomedical science · 2023Article
- The effect of case nodes in problem-based learning on the length and quality of discussion: a 2x2 factorial study.Canadian medical education journal · 2022Article
- A Virtual Approach to Promote Inter-Professional Learning (IPL) Between Biomedical Science and Medicine in Higher Education for the Benefit of Patient Care.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- How interprofessional education could benefit the future of healthcare - medical students' perspective.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Stimulating Students' Interprofessional Teamwork Skills Through Community-Based Education: A Mixed Methods Evaluation.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- Interprofessional Education Between Undergraduate Medical and Midwifery Students: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
- Bridging Basic and Clinical Medicine: A Combi-Method Approach to Pathophysiology Education.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraining health professional students in teamwork is recognized as an important step to create interprofessional collaboration in the clinical workplace. Interprofessional problem-based learning (PBL) is one learning approach that has been proposed to provide students with the opportunity to develop the necessary skills to work collaboratively with various health professionals. This study aimed to explore the extent to which students in interprofessional tutorial groups demonstrate constructive collaboration during group discussions.
methodsStudents (N = 52) from the Medical, Midwifery and Nursing programmes took part in the study. Video-recordings were made of interprofessional PBL discussions (N = 40) in five groups, eight videos per group. Over a period of 4 weeks, participants discussed four scenarios concerned with the reproductive system. The resulting 67 h of video data were analysed qualitatively. To ensure inter-rater reliability, two tutors assessed the students' constructive, collaborative activities using the Maastricht Peer-Activity Rating Scale (MPARS). Finally, to gain an understanding of students' perceptions of their performance and participation in the interprofessional PBL tutorial, we organized three uni-professional focus groups (FGs) at the end of pilot project.
resultsThe translated MPARS was reliable (Kappa coefficient 0.01-0.20 and p < 0.05). Students were actively involved in the discussion and contributed to a better understanding regardless of their professional background. Group members from different professions complemented one another in solving learning issues. They were open, feeling free to question and argue from the viewpoint of their own profession, and also understood their strengths and limitations. The statistical test of the scores for constructive and collaborative activities indicated a significant difference between students and the various healthcare professionals, p = 0.000, with medical students scoring highest on both activities. Focus groups further clarified some of the observed dynamics.
conclusionImplementing interprofessional PBL could motivate students to engage collaboratively in co-constructing knowledge to solve the patients' problem. Medical students scored highest on constructive and collaborative activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.