Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533721›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2019

Does PBL deliver constructive collaboration for students in interprofessional tutorial groups?

Endang Lestari, Renée E Stalmeijer, Doni Widyandana, Albert Scherpbier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

4 authors.

Endang LestariMedical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung, Semarang, Indonesia. endanglestari@unissula.ac.id.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7275-2701
Renée E StalmeijerSchool of Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Doni WidyandanaDepartment of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Albert ScherpbierSchool of Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Ministry of Research Technology and Higher Education of The Republic of Indonesia 0100/E5.1/PE/2015
6 · The paper itself

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

Problem-Based LearningStudents, MedicalAttitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorEducational MeasurementFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterprofessional RelationsMalePilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultInterprofessional problem-based learningMaastricht peer-activity rating scale (MPARS)

Identifiers

PMID31533721
PMCPMC6751883

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.