↓ Skip to main content

The positive impact of interprofessional education: a controlled trial to evaluate a programme for health professional students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
456 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
The positive impact of interprofessional education: a controlled trial to evaluate a programme for health professional students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0385-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Darlow, Karen Coleman, Eileen McKinlay, Sarah Donovan, Louise Beckingsale, Ben Gray, Hazel Neser, Meredith Perry, James Stanley, Sue Pullon

Abstract

Collaborative interprofessional practice is an important means of providing effective care to people with complex health problems. Interprofessional education (IPE) is assumed to enhance interprofessional practice despite challenges to demonstrate its efficacy. This study evaluated whether an IPE programme changed students' attitudes to interprofessional teams and interprofessional learning, students' self-reported effectiveness as a team member, and students' perceived ability to manage long-term conditions. A prospective controlled trial evaluated an eleven-hour IPE programme focused on long-term conditions' management. Pre-registration students from the disciplines of dietetics (n = 9), medicine (n = 36), physiotherapy (n = 12), and radiation therapy (n = 26) were allocated to either an intervention group (n = 41) who received the IPE program or a control group (n = 42) who continued with their usual discipline specific curriculum. Outcome measures were the Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCTS), Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), the Team Skills Scale (TSS), and the Long-Term Condition Management Scale (LTCMS). Analysis of covariance compared mean post-intervention scale scores adjusted for baseline scores. Mean post-intervention attitude scores (all on a five-point scale) were significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group for all scales. The mean difference for the ATHCTS was 0.17 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.30; p = 0.006), for the RIPLS was 0.30 (95%CI 0.16 to 0.43; p < 0.001), for the TSS was 0.71 (95%CI 0.49 to 0.92; p < 0.001), and for the LTCMS was 0.75 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.94; p < 0.001). The mean effect of the intervention was similar for students from the two larger disciplinary sub-groups of medicine and radiation therapy. An eleven-hour IPE programme resulted in improved attitudes towards interprofessional teams and interprofessional learning, as well as self-reported ability to function within an interprofessional team, and self-reported confidence, knowledge, and ability to manage people with long-term conditions. These findings indicate that a brief intervention such as this can have immediate positive effects and contribute to the development of health professionals who are ready to collaborate with others to improve patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 456 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 454 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 14%
Student > Bachelor 61 13%
Lecturer 46 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 8%
Researcher 31 7%
Other 94 21%
Unknown 126 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 142 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 90 20%
Social Sciences 20 4%
Psychology 18 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 2%
Other 29 6%
Unknown 148 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 June 2021.
All research outputs
#7,378,669
of 25,861,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,312
of 4,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,274
of 282,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,861,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,084 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 282,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.