ReviewJournal of medical education and curricular development
Interprofessional Education Between Undergraduate Medical and Midwifery Students: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Collaboration between doctors and midwives is critical for safe healthcare, and interprofessional education (IPE) can help ensure this. Despite emphasis on IPE, evidence on interventions specifically targeting medical and midwifery students has not been systematically synthesized. This review examined the effectiveness of IPE interventions between these professional groups and explored their educational experiences. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care, and PsycINFO were searched for studies (2015-2025) involving interventions targeting interprofessional communication between undergraduate medical and midwifery students. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies were included. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted, and appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). Quantitative results were narratively synthesized and qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Results: Sixteen studies (1,399 participants; eight countries) met inclusion criteria: five quantitative, six qualitative, and five mixed-methods studies. Interventions included simulation (most common), problem- and case-based learning, community placements, and anatomy sessions, lasting 3 hours to 3 years, delivered in-person, online, or hybrid. Quantitative findings demonstrated improvements across all six IPE domains (teamwork, roles/responsibilities, communication, learning/reflection, patient-centeredness, ethics/attitudes) with small to moderate effect sizes (standardized mean differences: 0.04-0.50). Validated instruments showed gains in collaborative attitudes, role understanding, and interprofessional skills. Qualitative synthesis revealed two main themes: facilitators of effective IPE, including enhanced collaborative learning, identity negotiation, experiential learning, and communication development, and implementation barriers such as hierarchies, scheduling, role confusion, and online delivery challenges. Discussion: This first systematic review of IPE interventions between medical and midwifery students demonstrates that structured simulation-based IPE improves collaborative competencies. Effectiveness depends on addressing professional hierarchies, and careful curriculum integration. Early IPE implementation can foster collaboration, and reduce communication-related harm in maternal care. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD420251070277.
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.