ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Promoting Speaking Up Through Interprofessional Identity Triggers in a Mixed-Profession Simulation Scenario: Two Group Double-Blinded Pre-Test-Only Design.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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.
- 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
- Co-designing an interprofessional care pathway for (risk of) malnutrition and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.BMC health services research · 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
Background: Speaking up can manifest in various forms, such as raising concerns or sharing ideas. While conceptual overlap exists within its behavioural dimensions, distinctions remain, including context-dependent social risks. Regarding the assurance of quality and safety in patient care, speaking up is paramount, particularly in mixed-profession groups. Speaking up requires specific competencies and depends on individuals' motivation to do so. Interprofessional identity (IPI) is a specific source of intrinsic motivation for interprofessional collaboration (IPC). Little is known about its relationship with speaking up. This study aims to investigate whether conversational topics act as triggers of IPI affecting speaking-up behaviour, and whether the strength of their influence varies across different conversational topics. Methods: Participants of this study were 41 dental bachelor and 43 dental hygiene students. IPI was measured using the Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS) eight weeks prior to a simulation session (not a training). Students were assigned into weak or strong identity conditions based on EPIS scores. Small mixed-profession groups with four to five members were formed based on their identity condition and in alphabetic order. Every mixed-profession group discussed eight conversational topics. Groups listed up to ten ideas per topic. The number of ideas generated per topic in each group was used to measure speaking up. A higher idea percentage in the strong IPI group indicated activated IPI, reflecting identity-congruent behaviour. Results: Mixed-profession groups with relatively strong IPI showed more speaking up than groups with weak identifiers. Conversational topics can trigger IPI to varying degrees, reflected in differing levels of speaking up. Conclusion: Some topics raise awareness of IPI, boosting speaking up in groups with relatively strong IPI. Using Extended Professional Identity Theory (EPIT) and effective IPI triggers in simulations helps trigger this behaviour. Moreover, reflective debriefing is likely to further support IPI and encourage speaking up.
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.