ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
The Creation of an Interprofessional Education (IPE) Strategy Utilising a Delphi Method.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Developing a faculty simulation-based education strategy: a Delphi study to build consensus and aid decision making.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundSupport for interprofessional education (IPE) is growing, with regulatory bodies requiring its inclusion in undergraduate healthcare programmes. Although the IPE Core Competencies and Guidelines offer principles for guiding IPE implementation, they lack practical application guidance. Bridging this gap necessitates tools to translate these frameworks into actionable practices. We developed an IPE strategy to overcome barriers by providing a clear roadmap to IPE implementation.
methodThe study designed a three-round E-Delphi. Initially, the research team created 24 strategic statements by consolidating existing IPE competencies. In Round 1, the panel could accept, reject, modify or add new statements. In Round 2, they could accept, reject or modify the revised statements. By Round 3, the panel either accepted or rejected the final statements. The research team analysed the levels of consensus, set at 80% agreement, and thematically analysed the free-text comments.
findingsThe Delphi panel consisted of 41 participants in Survey 1 and 43 in Surveys 2 and 3. The study began with 24 strategic statements across three priority areas. By the end of the Delphi process, this increased to 28 statements. Study consensus levels ranged from 74.29% to 100%, and participant retention rates were 85.4%, 67.4% and 62.7%, respectively.
conclusionThe use of the E-Delphi method demonstrates its value in gathering diverse input, fostering consensus and enhancing the quality and relevance of IPE strategic development by integrating a broad range of perspectives. Further research on the scalability and long-term effects of this IPE strategy is warranted.
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.