ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring faculty experiences and perceptions of interprofessional co-debriefing practice in healthcare simulation: a qualitative study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterprofessional co-debriefing, whereby facilitators from different healthcare professional backgrounds jointly facilitate debriefings, is increasingly common in simulation-based education. This approach can enhance learning by incorporating diverse perspectives and distributing cognitive workload, but it may also expose tensions linked to professional identity, hierarchy and power dynamics between debriefers. While learner outcomes and debriefing strategies in general are well studied, little is known about faculty experiences of interprofessional co-debriefing or how sociocultural factors influence this practice. Addressing this gap is crucial to optimise faculty development and support effective interprofessional education. This study will qualitatively explore the experiences and perceptions of simulation educators engaged in interprofessional co-debriefing, with a focus on the influence of sociocultural factors on their practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK-based qualitative study will recruit up to 30 healthcare simulation educators with experience of interprofessional co-debriefing. Participants will be purposively sampled from simulation networks, centres and academic institutions, with snowball sampling to broaden reach. Semistructured interviews will be conducted online via Microsoft Teams, guided by a topic framework developed by the research team. Interviews will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Underpinned by constructivist and constructionist paradigms, data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach. Three researchers will independently code transcripts, with themes refined through iterative team discussions to ensure rigour and transparency. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Glasgow School of Medical and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (Ref No: 200240285). All participants will provide informed written consent, and data will be handled in accordance with data protection regulations. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and professional networks, with a summary provided to participants. This study will offer novel insights into the underexplored area of interprofessional co-debriefing, specifically how sociocultural dynamics may influence and shape practice, potentially informing faculty development and best practice moving forward.
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.