Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39014422›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Interprofessional education in cancer care - a scoping review.

Virpi Sulosaari, Nikolina Dodlek, Andreas Brandl, Johan De Munter, Jesper Grau Eriksen, Wendy McInally, Niall O'Higgins, Kim Benstead, Celia Díez de Los Ríos de la Serna

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

9 authors.

Virpi SulosaariTurku University of Applied Sciences, Joukahaisenkatu 3, 20520, Turku, Finland. Virpi.Sulosaari@turkuamk.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0898-3297
Nikolina DodlekCyprus University of Technology, Archiepiskopou Kyprianou 30, Limassol, Cyprus.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0534-721X
Andreas BrandlDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1990-2584
Johan De MunterCancer Centre University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Jesper Grau EriksenDept of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1145-6033
Wendy McInallyThe Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9900-4612
Niall O'HigginsSchool of Medicine, University College, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Kim BensteadDept of Oncology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, College Rd, GL53 7AN, Cheltenham, RN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5106-7438
Celia Díez de Los Ríos de la SernaSchool of Nursing, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2630-2106

Funding

EU4HEALTH Programme 101056995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care.

methodsThe JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care.

resultsOf the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals' self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study.

conclusionsBased on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsNeoplasmsPatient Care TeamCooperative BehaviorHealth PersonnelHumansInterprofessional EducationMedical OncologyCancer careInterdisciplinary educationInterprofessional collaborationInterprofessional educationInter-specialty trainingInterspecialty trainingOncology

Identifiers

PMID39014422
PMCPMC11253347

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.