ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluation of "The Interprofessional Education Academy".
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A longitudinal core curriculum to strengthen interprofessional competencies in German undergraduate nursing education: a mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Cross-cultural and international barriers and enablers to medication safety and pharmacotherapy: insights from a World Café study on interprofessional education.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Which Factors Promote Interprofessional Competence in Placements on a Training Ward? New Findings.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Shaping interprofessional identity and attitudes: scenario-based training in oral-systemic patient management.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluation of paramedics education in emergency health services.BMC medical education · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of the "1st Interprofessional Education Academy" on the interprofessional identity and attitudes of healthcare students in Turkey. This was a 4 day national training program for 24 health professionals aimed to increase effective collaboration and communication skills, support the development of professional identity, and strengthen the implementation of IPE in Turkey. Twenty-four female participants (mean age: 22.88 ± 2.35 years) from various healthcare disciplines completed the Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS-TR) and the Interprofessional Attitude Scale (IPAS) before and after the intervention. The results showed significant improvements in all EPIS-TR subscales (interprofessional belonging, commitment, and beliefs) and total scores, indicating a positive impact on interprofessional identity. The IPAS results revealed significant increases in the teamwork, roles, and responsibilities (TRR), patient-centeredness (PC), cultural competency (CC), and overall scores, suggesting enhanced interprofessional attitudes and competencies. A moderately positive correlation was found between EPIS-TR and IPAS total scores. In the analysis, it was seen that there was an increase in the perception level of the participants regarding the importance of IPE due to the effect of the training they received. In addition, there was a significant decrease in participants' perceptions of their place in the training programs due to an increase in their awareness. The training program received positive evaluations from the participants. These findings highlight the effectiveness of structured IPE interventions in fostering collaborative attitudes and identities among health care students. Further research with larger and more diverse samples is needed to reinforce these results and provide additional evidence for the scale's applicability in IPE 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.