Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42699199›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026

The Gordian Knot That Is Patient and Public Involvement in Interprofessional Education.

Matthijs H Bosveld, Dante N Mulder, Lucija Gosak, Isabelle Huys, Cathy C Kline, Matilde R P F Leal, Mateja Lorber, Elsa F Mateus, Pedro Morgado, Catarina Raposo-Lima and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Matthijs H BosveldCare and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0742-2842
Dante N MulderMaastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5804-8889
Lucija GosakUniversity of Maribor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8742-6594
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4738-8298
Cathy C KlineUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2254-0721
Matilde R P F LealNursing Research, Innovation and Development Centre of Lisbon (CIDNUR), Nursing School of Lisbon (ESEL), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9814-4590
Mateja LorberUniversity of Maribor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7200-5204
Elsa F MateusBoard of EUPATI Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0059-2141
Pedro MorgadoSchool of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-3258
Catarina Raposo-LimaSchool of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0609-6766
Adrijana SvenšekUniversity of Maribor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0323-1720
Charlotte VerbekeDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7149-2239
Marloes A van BokhovenCare and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4110-0978
Ricardo J O FerreiraNursing Research, Innovation and Development Centre of Lisbon (CIDNUR), Nursing School of Lisbon (ESEL), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2517-0247

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The combination of patient and public involvement (PPI) and interprofessional education (IPE) is promising to help students delineate roles based on real patients' needs; however, their integration in practice remains limited. Although the individual concepts have been studied, little is known about how stakeholders perceive PPI in IPE, leaving gaps in designing effective educational strategies. Therefore, this study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders - students, academic staff members, and patient representatives - on the feasibility, (intended) learning outcomes, and requirements for the successful implementation of PPI in IPE in undergraduate healthcare education. Methods: We qualitatively explored the experiences and perspectives of each stakeholder group in separate focus groups. In total, 15 focus groups were conducted across four European countries, involving 27 academic staff members, 27 students, and 24 patient representatives, all with diverse backgrounds. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Themes were structured by organizational levels within educational institutions to optimize uptake in practice. As for strategic considerations ( Discussion: Despite strong rhetorical endorsement, a lack of institutional support persists. Our findings suggest PPI in IPE as a powerful means of addressing epistemic injustice by promoting epistemic symmetry between future professionals and patients, reducing interprofessional hierarchies, and grounding interprofessional learning in real-world experiences. Strategic use of these levers may unlock the necessary institutional resources, acting as Alexander's sword to overcome barriers and ultimately slice through the Gordian knot.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationInterprofessional EducationPatient ParticipationEuropeFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterprofessional RelationsQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID42699199
PMCPMC13544041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.