(+) competent educators [ (+) knowledge of each other’s roles [ (−) inadequate faculty development specific to IPE [ (−) inability to fully understand the IPE concept and its inherent value [ (−) lack of clarity on (learning) goals [ |
|
(+) enthusiasm, humour, and empathy [ (−) lack of respect; lack of interest [ (−) sense of academic elitism [ |
|
(+) active engagement with other profession [ (+) educating style: not just ‘imparting knowledge’ [ (−) educating style that corresponds to professional traditions [ (−) condescension and defensiveness [ (−) lack of preparations [ (−) unfamiliarity with teaching different professions [ (−) time inadequacy [ |
|
(+) patient-centred models [ (+) team-based approaches [ (+) self-directed learning [ (+) experiential-based learning through clinical or community practice and placements [ (+) teambuilding activities [ (+) team skills training [ (+) training in team communication skills [ (+) combining learning methods [ (−) employing a single learning method [ (−) compiling case studies for students [ (−) silo approach [ |
|
(+) creating a climate of safety and confidence among learners [ (+) creating a motivational environment, providing incentives [ (+) diversity of educators; co-facilitation [ (+) debriefing [ (+) feedback [ (+) shared reflection for learners [ (+) high quality of facilitation [ (−) lack of adequate supervision/support [ |
|
(+) learning in a non-threatening environment [ (+) learning at their own time; asynchronous aspect [ |
|
(+) faculty development programs [ (+) educational theory linked to supporting collaborative social learning [ |
|
(−) IPE teaching through lectures [ (−) teacher who just transmits knowledge [ (−) sub-optimal IPE – teaching that not represent clinical settings [ |
|
(+) stimulating collaboration and teamwork [ (+) panel discussion with IP team practitioners [ |
|
(+) support for IPE matched to clinical reality [ (+) involvement of (simulation) patients in IPE lessons [ (+) participate in case scenarios in small groups [ (+) self-efficacy and understanding of others’ professional role [ (+) value in the discussions during the simulation [ (+) improved interprofessional communication [ (+) building positive relationships [ (+) benefit of being an observing participant [ (−) lack of simulation knowledge [ (−) lack of faculty expertise in technology [ |
|
(+) real cases [ (+) scenarios as learning material for discussion [ (+) problem-based learning [ (+) complete root cause analysis and develop recommendations [ |
|
(+) authenticity of the context [ (+) real cases for clinical practice [ (+) identify the roles of other professions [ (+) promoted interaction in a non-threatening environment [ (−) lack of adequate supervision/support [ |
Population |
≥ two different health professions Students/trainees from the health professions Trained health professiona |
Only one health profession Health professions where the clients are not human, such as veterinarians Persons before the start of training or studies (pre-study internship) |
Intervention |
IPP Readiness for IPE/IPP with RIPLS |
|
Outcome | Focus on influencing factors, barriers, facilitating factors | Focus on effectiveness of the IPE programme and/or knowledge gain through the IPE program |
Study design | All different review formats that have conducted a systematic literature review, e.g. systematic reviews, scoping reviews. |
Empirical studies Reviews without systematic literature search |
Setting | Teaching, clinical setting, education and training |
(0) age and gender [ (+) younger students [ |
|
(0) (previous) experiences [ (−) own role uncertainty [ (−) lack of knowledge about each other profession [ (−) focus on professional knowledge [ |
|
(+) enthusiasm and motivation [ (−) students thought it was time-wasting [ (−) reserved style [ (−) lack of respect [ (−) feeling threatened [ (−) fear about loss of professional identity [ (−) distrust [ |
|
(+) respect and interest in IPE [ (−) monoprofessional self-identity [ (−) role and professional identity uncertainty [ (−) arrogant and aggressive behaviour [ (−) professional stereotypes [ (−) lack of clear expectations [ (−) status [ |
Resources | |
(+) external / internal funding [ (−) different funding and competition [ (−) lack of financial incentives [ (−) successfully sustain IPE activities within normal budgets [ (−) differential salaries [ |
|
(+) flexible schedule; spread over time [ (−) lack of allocation of time resources [ (−) different timetables and complex schedules [ (−) varying program calendars [ (−) lack of time for implementation of IPE [ |
|
(+) well-resourced rooms [ (+) physical space designated for simulation [ (−) lack of classroom space [ (−) logistics of the location [ (−) equipment issues [ |
|
(+) regular planning and discussion between facilitators [ (+) remuneration for IPE faculty training [ (+) providing online resources for faculty training [ (−) limited faculty resources [ (−) high workloads placed upon staff by management [ (−) poor attendance of medical staff [ (−) require more staff [ |
|
(+) support through management and leaders [ (+) shared interprofessional vision by staff [ (−) lack of (conceptual) support from management [ (−) limited availability of staff development programs [ |
|
Organizational structures | |
(+) well integrated with the curricula [ (+) longitudinal, structured setting/curriculum of IPE [ (+) referral to a specific standard/framework of competence for IPE [ (−) various accreditation demands [ (−) integrating IPE into curriculum of different institutions [ (−) no underlying principles of competency framework [ (−) predominantly siloed, content-heavy monoprofessional curricula [ |
|
(+) structured IPE programmes [ (+) development of appropriate organisational structures [ (+) flexibility (interprofessional e-learning the asynchronous aspect) [ (−) contrasting systems and teaching processes [ (−) lack of central planning [ (−) clashes with profession-specific learning activities [ (−) coordinating students and teachers from different units [ (−) large number of students [ |
|
Implementation | |
(0) different conceptualizations of IPE (top-down vs. student centered IPE) [ (0) selection of appropriate level of study among students [ (+) face to face small group learning activities [ (+) combining learning methods [ (+) providing electronic resources such as cases or simulations [ (−) complexity of the learning topic [ (−) difficulty meeting needs of all disciplines [ (−) adaption to learners needs [ (−) dissonance between stated faculty values and educational practice [ (−) lack of access, structure or continuity to (interprofessional) placements [ |
|
(+) collaboration and shared commitment of stakeholders [ (+) wearing a uniform [ (−) difference in personal objectives of the involved educators [ (−) high learning load [ (−) lack of enough time [ |
|
(+) providing standardized assessment tools [ (+) progress of IPE and the positive results [ (−) lack of assessment [ |
(0) age and gender [ (0) number of professions and group size [ |
|
(0) mismatch in age, profession, and differences in experiences [ (−) lack of diversity in small learning groups [ (−) different levels of learning [ (−) differences in workload [ (−) differences in the knowledge base [ (−) different learning needs [ (−) differences in experiences [ (−) different learning styles [ (−) different professional jargons [ |
|
(+) clear IPE goals [ (−) unclear or irrelevant IPE goals [ (−) profession-specific goals in combination with IPE goals [ |
|
(+) common values for IPE [ (+) effective communication [ open communication style [ (+) make joint decisions in agreement [ (−) unfamiliarity [ (−) lack of active engagement in team tasks [ (−) lack of conflict resolution strategies [ |
|
(+) own role clarity [ (+) equal status [ (+) team identity; being part of a ‘supra-identity’ [ (−) different role expectations [ (−) medical profession is usually perceived as dominant to other professions [ (−) focusing on one’s own profession [ (−) professional stereotyping [ |
|
(+) building interprofessional relationships/time to socialize [ (+) use of informal learning [ (+) trust and collegiality [ (−) the more professionals are specialized, the more difficulties are to collaborate [ (−) professional tribalism [ (−) status/power differentials [ (−) not valuing others’ opinions [ (−) conflicts or tensions between learners [ |