Search

We identified evidence from item response theory (IRT) to examine a German translation of the Interprofessional Facilitation Scale (IPFS). The IPFS was administered to n  = 130 mixed-health profession participants in a post-interprofessional education practicum questionnaire. We used IRT analyses to examine the following three aspects of the IPFS: (a) general factor strength, (b) subscale usability, and (c) item bias. First, findings indicate a strong, general factor underlying the IPFS that supports unidimensional interpretations. Second, findings supported IPFS overall reliability, but failed to support subscale reliabilities. Third, item bias assessment using a comparator-French sample ( n  = 89) indicated insubstantial differences across German and French samples. Taken together, we find sufficient evidence to support the IPFS-German translation's application in IPE contexts and unidimensional interpretations. Subscores are not advisable for interpretation, and future researchers should aim to further inspect potential item bias.

Interprofessional research within the contexts of education and health and social care practice has grown exponentially within the past three decades. To maintain the momentum of high-quality research, it is important that early career researchers embarking on their first research journey and new to interprofessional education or interprofessional collaborative practice feel supported in making their contribution to the field. This guide, developed by the Center for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) Research Group, has been written with these groups in mind who are embarking on their first research journey, and new to the interprofessional field. It aims to raise awareness of academic resources and share practical advice from those who have previously experienced problems when undertaking interprofessional research in education or health and social care practice.

For the past more than 50 years, the World Health Organisation has acknowledged through empirical findings that health workers that learn together work together effectively to provide the best care for their patients. This study aimed to: (1) describe the perceived extent of interprofessional education (IPE) experience among Filipino occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and speech-language-pathologists (SLPs); (2) identify their attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration (IPC); and (3) compare their attitudes towards IPC according to: prior IPE experience, classification of IPE experience, profession, years of practice, and practice setting. Using a cross-sectional survey design, a two-part questionnaire was sent to Filipino OTs, PTs, and SLPs working in the Philippines via an online survey application. The first part of the survey contained eight items of demographic information and the second part contained the 14-item Attitudes Towards Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCTS). Findings revealed that among the Filipino OT, PT and SLP respondents (n = 189), 70.9% had prior experience on IPE. Moreover, the three most commonly used IPE teaching-learning strategies were case discussion (clinical setting), small group discussion, didactics, and case discussion (community setting), while the use of didactics and case discussion (community setting) yielded more agreeable attitudes towards IPC. Among the 14 items in the ATHCTS, 11 were rated with agreeability and three items with neutrality. For professional variables, only the practice setting variable yielded a statistically significant finding confirming those working in the academia to be more agreeable towards IPC compared to other settings. However, years of practice and professional background variables both yielded no statistically significant difference implying no association between years of practice and attitude towards IPC and a homogenous composition among respondents, respectively. The results of this research are to springboard IPE initiatives within Philippine higher education institutions to enable evidence-based IPC approaches in clinical practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and ensuing physical distancing measures, poses challenges for researchers in the field of interprofessional care. Pandemic management has highlighted the centrality of interprofessional working to effective healthcare delivery during crises. It is essential to find ways to maintain interprofessional research that has commenced, while also designing research to capture important learning from pandemic management and response. However, it also creates opportunities for new research projects and novel research designs. This discussion paper explores ways of adapting existing research methodologies and outlines potential avenues for new research. Specifically, considerations to bear in mind when designing interprofessional research during the pandemic include research ethics and integrity, research design, data collection methods, research opportunities, implications and limitations. Interprofessional research can continue to make a valuable contribution in informing global responses to COVID-19 and in planning for future global health crises. We call for, insofar as possible, for interprofessional research to continue to be developed during this time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]