ArticleBMJ open2026
Research priorities in the field of interprofessional healthcare education: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectivesInterprofessional education (IPE) is a key factor, preparing students for collaboration to improve quality in healthcare. Current literature implies that IPE research needs to be relevant for students, teachers and stakeholders ensuring that research answers the most important research issues. Therefore, the objective of this study was to establish outcomes of a partnership between students, teachers and clinicians to rank the top 10 research priorities for IPE.
designJames Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA).
settingHigher health education in Sweden.
participantsStudents, teachers and healthcare professionals (clinicians).
methodAccording to the JLA process, a steering committee was established. A pilot survey to gather research uncertainties highly relevant for participants was performed and tested by the content validity index. The pilot survey was followed by a main survey with 53 participants and a final workshop to determine the top 10 research priorities.
resultsThe content validity index was satisfactory for 23 out of 27 research uncertainties, followed by minor changes and removal of three uncertainties. After processing the 24 uncertainties from the main survey, 21 remained in the workshop. The final top 10 research priorities included measurements to evaluate IPE, promoting and hindering factors for IPE, educational models for IPE, longitudinal studies on effects from IPE and implementation of IPE.
conclusionThe priorities represent consensus areas from students, teachers and clinicians to guide future research and justify and inform strategic allocation of research funding.
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.