ArticleGMS journal for medical education2025
Interprofessional learning in the topical workshops at the Universität zu Lübeck - a qualitative study.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interprofessional healthcare requires interprofessional learning (IPL) starting during academic education. The aim of this study is to examine the implementation of IPL in the modules "Topical Workshop (TW) for Orthopaedic Rehabilitation" and "TW for Paediatrics and Child and Adolescent Psychosomatics" at the Universität zu Lübeck (UzL) from the perspective of students in occupational therapy, speech therapy, and physiotherapy. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, qualitative data was collected and analysed using Kuckartz's method of content-structuring qualitative content analysis. Building on this, two focus group interviews were conducted in phase 2 and analysed using the same method. The data was integrated using a triangulation approach. A final member reflection was carried out. Results: The analysis of five interviews, five written pre-understandings, the central evaluation, and two focus group interviews shows: Joint learning of new content, understanding of profession-specific content, and the acquisition of interprofessional skills are at the core of IPL. In the modules, the various professions were involved to different extents, approaches to interprofessional collaboration (IPC) were demonstrated, and practical relevance was established. Facilitating factors such as practical content and group work were contrasted by challenges such as a lack of exchange and unsuitable tasks. The perceived learning gains resulted in wishes and ideas for shaping future TWs. Conclusion: Both facilitating and inhibiting factors for IPL were identified. These lead to approaches for further developing the modules, which can be applied to similar academic 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.