ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
University Staff Insights on Interprofessional Education and Student-Led Clinic Opportunities at an Australian University.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning in a contextually complex rural clinical placement.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Article
- Redefining Aging: A Call to Action for Society to Address a Demographic Shift in Health Care.NAM perspectives · 2025Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Organizational and university staff buy-in and advocacy are critical considerations in planning successful interprofessional education (IPE) initiatives in healthcare, such as interprofessional student-led clinics (SLCs). This study was designed with the purpose of gaining deeper insight into current views and perspectives of academic and professional staff at an Australian university, as a precursor to planning IPE and SLC activities. Methods: All academic and professional staff from within the School of Health Sciences were invited to participate in the study. In-depth-qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 staff to explore academic and professional staff perspectives on IPE and SLCs. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Findings are grouped within five themes that incorporate broad perspectives on the tensions and possibilities of IPE and establishment of SLCs: Academic and professional staff commitment; Better/smarter IPE; Student-led clinic potential; Vision and innovation; and Strategy and resourcing. The themes reflect the high value placed on IPE by academic and professional staff and incorporate innovative ideas on how to prepare students for a rapidly changing and evolving healthcare environment. A reticence towards standard models of university based SLCs was expressed. Conclusion: Academic and professional staff insights suggest university leaders need to develop a greater strategic focus on improving IPE. Effective engagement with staff is required to support IPE planning and implementation. If considering implementation of SLCs, contemporary fit-for-purpose models should be explored such as partnerships with primary healthcare providers, community wellness facilities, and hospital clinics rather than traditional university-based clinics.
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.