↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of residents, medical and nursing students about Interprofessional education: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceptions of residents, medical and nursing students about Interprofessional education: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0909-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cora L.F. Visser, Johannes C.F. Ket, Gerda Croiset, Rashmi A. Kusurkar

Abstract

To identify facilitators and barriers that residents, medical and nursing students perceive in their Interprofessional Education (IPE) in a clinical setting with other healthcare students. A systematic review was carried out to identify the perceptions of medical students, residents and nursing students regarding IPE in a clinical setting. PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC and PsycInfo were searched, using keywords and MeSH terms from each database's inception published prior to June 2014. Interprofessional education involving nursing and medical students and/or residents in IPE were selected by the first author. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion or exclusion and extracted the data. Sixty-five eligible papers (27 quantitative, 16 qualitative and 22 mixed methods) were identified and synthesized using narrative synthesis. Perceptions and attitudes of residents and students could be categorized into 'Readiness for IPE', 'Barriers to IPE' and 'Facilitators of IPE'. Within each category they work at three levels: individual, process/curricular and cultural/organizational. Readiness for IPE at individual level is higher in females, irrespective of prior healthcare experience. At process level readiness for IPE fluctuates during medical school, at cultural level collaboration is jeopardized when groups interact poorly. Examples of IPE-barriers are at individual level feeling intimidated by doctors, at process level lack of formal assessment and at cultural level exclusion of medical students from interaction by nurses. Examples of IPE-facilitators are at individual level affective crises and patient care crises situations that create feelings of urgency, at process level small group learning activities in an authentic context and at cultural level getting acquainted informally. These results are related to a model for learning and teaching, to illustrate the implications for the design of IPE. Most of the uncovered barriers are at the cultural level and most of the facilitators are at the process level. Factors at the individual level need more research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 283 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 13%
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 10%
Lecturer 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Other 67 24%
Unknown 68 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 71 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 63 22%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Psychology 7 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 32 11%
Unknown 85 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,594,377
of 21,357,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#590
of 3,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,630
of 283,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,357,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them