ArticleBMJ open2025
Experiences of interprofessional learning among students in primary healthcare settings: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Interprofessional learning at primary healthcare centres.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Technology-based teaching to support health students' clinical skills in stroke recovery: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrevious research on interprofessional learning in primary healthcare has been focused on students' learning in the encounter with the patient. However, the research is limited, and a review of the experiences of patients, students, and supervisors of interprofessional learning in primary healthcare is lacking. The focus of this scoping review is to describe the current knowledge and also to identify knowledge gaps.
designA scoping review in which blocks of keywords and synonyms were used for achieving a high level of subject precision together with a qualitative thematic analysis for the presentation of the results. DATA SOURCES: Publications from 2012 to 2024 were searched for in the PubMed, CINAHL and ERIC databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Peer-reviewed studies with a qualitative design describing the experiences of patients, students and supervisors of interprofessional learning in primary healthcare were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The articles were retrieved, stored and reviewed in a shared online folder. All the authors participated in the scoping review. The decisions on inclusion/exclusion were made after a systematic, multidisciplinary team approach, which involved all the authors in the discussions to reach a consensus.
resultsThe results showed that interprofessional learning helped the students to focus on the patient and that the students broadened their perspectives when working together. The results showed that supervisors planned for interprofessional learning by setting aside time for the students to get to know each other. The supervisors confirmed that interprofessional learning contributed to the primary healthcare employees remaining abreast with high professional standards, with updated knowledge, more resources and the implementation of several organisational changes.
conclusionsInterprofessional learning contributed to a patient-centred approach that provided new insights and expanded knowledge for students in professional training. More research is needed to understand how interprofessional learning between different professions can be developed.
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.