ArticleMedical education online2020
Implementing a collaborative medicine and pharmacy educational activity in two countries.
Article in Medical education online, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes of interprofessional education for pharmacy students: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Effective situation-based delirium simulation training using flipped classroom approach to improve interprofessional collaborative practice competency: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- Insights into Delivering Cross-Cultural Medical Education in the UK and Malaysia.Medical science educator · 2021Article
- Development of a Vertically Integrated Pharmacy Degree.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo promote better collaboration for patient care, interprofessional education (IPE) is required in many health professions courses. However, successful IPE implementation at scale can be challenging because of complicated logistics and competing priorities. Implementing across multiple geographies adds further complexity.
objectiveThis paper describes the implementation of a full cohort IPE activity for medical and pharmacy students delivered at both the Australian and Malaysian campuses of Monash University.
designWe designed a 150-minute, blended learning activity centred around asthma care for second-year medical and pharmacy students. Student perceptions were measured with a pre- and post-activity survey using the validated ten-item, three-factor, SPICE-R2 instrument. Analysis focused on differences between professions and countries.
resultsAll second-year medicine (N = 301 in Australia and N = 107 in Malaysia) and pharmacy students (N = 168 in Australia and N = 117 in Malaysia) participated in the learning activity. A total of 326/693 (47%) students participated in the associated research by completing both the pre- and post-activity surveys. The pre-activity survey showed significant differences in four items between medicine and pharmacy students in Australia and two items in Malaysia. Post-activity, we observed significant changes in 8/10 items when the two professions were combined. Specifically, we noted changes across the countries in perceptions of roles and responsibilities for collaborative practice and patient outcomes from collaborative practice.
conclusionsIPE across different professions and countries is feasible. Positive outcomes in role understanding and perceived patient outcomes are achievable through a context-sensitive, locally driven approach to implementation. Longitudinal experiences may be required to influence perceptions of teamwork and team-based care.
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.