ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2026
Metacognitive regulation: emergence, focus, and function in interprofessional collaborative learning.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Effective learning depends on metacognitive regulation (MR), especially in interprofessional learning (IPL) contexts, which typically involve collaboration on diverse cases. However, education research and support have devoted insufficient attention to the regulation of group collaborative learning. The present study employed rigorous socio-cognitive content analysis to examine IPL in small mixed groups (N = 7) of undergraduate health professionals (N = 47). A four-week online group discussion period was used to explore the emergence, focus, and function of MR and socially shared metacognitive regulation (SSMR). The results confirm the emergence of MR in every group, ranging from 15 to 25% of sentences produced regarding four themes: task production, case content, interprofessional content, and group collaborative learning. In every group, MR focused more on high-level content processing than on low-level task production. The findings indicate that the primary function of MR is to monitor learning, with little planning or evaluation. While most MR was socially shared, there were clear differences between the groups in this regard. Overall, statistical testing revealed significant differences between the seven groups in terms of the emergence, focus, and function of MR and the extent of SSMR. It can be concluded that consistent high-level collaboration demands explicit educational support to amplify MR emergence, with a greater focus on content integration, planning and evaluation. The study augments the limited existing literature on the role of MR and SSMR in interprofessional collaborative learning; it shows how MR in collaborative learning can enhance instruction in health and social care education contexts.
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.