ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2021
Development and Evaluation of an Inter-professional Education Course at a Medical School in Korea.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Effects of Serious Games (Immersive Virtual Reality Versus Web-Based Platforms) on Interprofessional Education Among Undergraduate Health Care Students: Randomized Controlled Trial and Multimethod Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Nursing students' readiness and training needs for interprofessional education: A cross-sectional study in South Korea.PloS one · 2026Article
- Trends in patient safety education research for healthcare professional students over the past two decades: a bibliometric and content analysis.Medical education online · 2024Review
- The status of interprofessional education for healthcare students in South Korea: a scoping review focusing on simulation-based education.Korean journal of medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) is emphasized in medical care for patient safety. As patient care is provided by teams, interprofessional competence is required to ensure the quality and safety of care and should be taught as early as possible. In this study, we introduced a 2-week interprofessional education (IPE) curriculum and attempted to describe and evaluate its effectiveness among medical students.
methodsWe developed a 2-week IPE course and gave it to third- or fourth-year medical students (n = 166) from 2018 to 2019. The curriculum was composed of interactive lectures, discussions, small-group discussions, and simulation and was given to diverse medical students. Students were asked to report their satisfaction with the IPE program, write a reflection paper, and complete readiness for interprofessional learning scale (RIPLS) questionnaires before, immediately after, and 4 months after the curriculum. We also obtained 360° evaluations of the students by other health professionals 1 year after the training.
resultsThe IPE program changed students' attitudes about interprofessional learning, from less favorable to more favorable. The 360° evaluation by nurses revealed that students became more favored as teammates (overall satisfaction with them as teammates increased from 3.1/5 to 3.4/5) compared to medical interns before IPE training, and complaints from nurses about medical interns were significantly less frequent 1 year after the training.
conclusionThe IPE program was effective in preparing medical students for team based collaborative practice even though it was short and exposed once in the curriculum. Further extension to other medical schools is recommended.
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.