ArticleActa medica Philippina2025
A Mental Health Care Setting as a Clinical Exposure Site for Interprofessional Education: a Qualitative Study.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 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.
- Insights on suicide postvention for healthcare institutions in the Philippines: a health systems framework approach.Frontiers in psychology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interprofessional collaboration is required as a learning outcome for medical school graduates. Clinical exposure to collaborative practice is one of the recommended strategies in the implementation of interprofessional education. Professionals in mental health units customarily engage in collaborative practice and can provide learning opportunities for medical students. Local data on interprofessional collaboration among practitioners in a mental health care setting in the pandemic is limited and merits study. Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine and then describe factors that influence collaborative practice among health professionals in an inpatient mental health care unit in the pandemic. It aimed to generate recommendations from practitioners on strategies to optimize opportunities for medical students to learn interprofessional collaboration. Methods: This is a qualitative study which made use of key informant interviews (KIIs) and focused group discussions (FGDs) with members of a multiprofessional mental health team in the mental health unit of a tertiary medical center. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had drastically disrupted health care services and opportunities for interprofessional collaboration. Participants described their roles and identified six factors essential to reenergizing collaborative practice: resources and opportunities for meaningful interaction, quality of relationship and communication among team members, management goals and strategies relevant to the mental health needs and the context of patients and their families, guidelines for collaboration, interprofessional education appropriate to participant levels, and monitoring for quality assurance and improvement. Practical guidelines for promoting the identified factors were outlined. Recommendations to optimize opportunities for interprofessional education were also given. Conclusion: Six factors were identified and described in the study. These can provide practitioners and students with a frame of reference for participating in and learning from collaborative practice in a mental health care unit as they work with other professionals on a shared concern. Addressing practical issues in real life settings will enhance their capacity to meaningfully collaborate with other professionals in managing patients, institutions, projects, and similar situations.
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.