↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of an interprofessional team-based learning program involving seven undergraduate health and social care programs from two universities, and students’ evaluation of their readiness for…

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Implementation of an interprofessional team-based learning program involving seven undergraduate health and social care programs from two universities, and students’ evaluation of their readiness for interprofessional learning
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1046-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lap Ki Chan, Fraide Ganotice, Frances Kam Yuet Wong, Chak Sing Lau, Susan M. Bridges, Celia Hoi Yan Chan, Namkiu Chan, Phoebe Wing Lam Chan, Hai Yong Chen, Julie Yun Chen, Jody Kwok Pui Chu, Charlene C. Ho, Jacqueline Mei Chi Ho, Tai Pong Lam, Veronica Suk Fun Lam, Qingyun Li, Jian Gang Shen, Julian Alexander Tanner, Winnie Wan Yee Tso, Arkers Kwan Ching Wong, Gordon Tin Chun Wong, Janet Yuen Ha Wong, Nai Sum Wong, Alan Worsley, Lei King Yu, Tin Pui Yum

Abstract

Interprofessional learning is gaining momentum in revolutionizing healthcare education. During the academic year 2015/16, seven undergraduate-entry health and social care programs from two universities in Hong Kong took part in an interprofessional education program. Based on considerations such as the large number of students involved and the need to incorporate adult learning principles, team-based learning was adopted as the pedagogy for the program, which was therefore called the interprofessional team-based learning program (IPTBL). The authors describe the development and implementation of the IPTBL program and evaluate the effectiveness of the program implementation. Eight hundred and one students, who are predominantly Chinese, participated in the IPTBL. The quantitative design (a pretest-posttest experimental design) was utilized to examine the students' gains on their readiness to engage in interprofessional education (IPE). Three instructional units (IUs) were implemented, each around a clinical area which could engage students from complementary health and social care disciplines. Each IU followed a team-based learning (TBL) process: pre-class study, individual readiness assurance test, team readiness assurance test, appeal, feedback, and application exercise. An electronic platform was developed and was progressively introduced in the three IUs. The students' self-perceived attainment of the IPE learning outcomes was high. Across all four subscales of RIPLS, there was significant improvement in student's readiness to engage in interprofessional learning after the IPTBL. A number of challenges were identified: significant time involvement of the teachers, difficulty in matching students from different programs, difficulty in making IPTBL count towards a summative assessment score, difficulty in developing the LAMS platform, logistics difficulty in managing paper TBL, and inappropriateness of the venue. Despite some challenges in developing and implementing the IPTBL program, our experience showed that TBL is a viable pedagogy to be used in interprofessional education involving hundreds of students. The significant improvement in all four subscales of RIPLS showed the effects of the IPTBL program in preparing students for collaborative practice. Factors that contributed to the success of the use of TBL for IPE are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Professor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Lecturer 7 7%
Other 27 28%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 20%
Social Sciences 16 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Psychology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 25 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,207,113
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#709
of 4,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,338
of 448,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#21
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 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 4,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 448,117 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.