ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026
The particularities and challenges of establishing a curricular teaching unit on interprofessional communication in healthcare.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have demonstrated substantial deficits in interprofessional (IP) communication, which contribute to reduced quality of patient care and increased healthcare expenditure. Against this backdrop, a course aiming for strengthening IP competencies was established. Methods: The target groups were medical students (MS; n=168), nursing trainees (NT; n=30), and paramedic trainees (PT; n=28). The course focused on role clarification and communication and was delivered using simulation-based training scenarios (IP feedback, team communication, and handover). A comprehensive evaluation was performed using a Likert scale (1-6; 1=I agree, 6=I disagree; mean±SD). Results: In the evaluation, MS reported significantly less interest in the topics than NT ("Topics were interesting to me": NT 1.9±1.8 vs. MS 3.3±1.8, p<0.05). In contrast to MS and PT, NT perceived the content as well aligned with their level of knowledge (NT 1.3±0.7 vs. MS 3.6±2.0 vs. PT 4.4±1.3, p<0.05). MS rated the time allocated for interprofessional exchange as sufficient, whereas PT rated it as insufficient (MS 1.9±0.3 vs. PT 3.1±2.4, p<0.05). More than 92% of participants rated all training scenarios as clinically relevant. The relevance of the IP topic was praised, while the uneven ratios of the participating professions was criticized. Discussion and conclusion: The evaluation suggests that interest in IP content varies considerably among participants. Given the high relevance of the topic, this should not result in IP training being offered only to those who are already interested; instead, IP courses should be mandatory and integrated into the curriculum. Specific challenges in establishing IP teaching must be considered, such as ensuring curricular placement aligned with learners' prior knowledge across professional groups.
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.