A scoping review of interprofessional collaborative practice and education using the lens of the Triple Aim
TL;DR: This paper proposes moving this area of inquiry beyond theoretical assumptions to systematic research that will strengthen the evidence base for the effectiveness of IPE and collaborative practice within the context of the evolving imperative of the Triple Aim.
Abstract: The Triple Aim unequivocally connects interprofessional healthcare teams to the provision of better healthcare services that would eventually lead to improved health outcomes. This review of the in...
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This updated review found that key context (presage) and process factors reported in the previous review continue to have resonance on the delivery of IPE.
Abstract: Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) aims to bring together different professionals to learn with, from, and about one another in order to collaborate more effectively in the delivery of safe, high-quality care for patients/clients. Given its potential for improving collaboration and care delivery, there have been repeated calls for the wider-scale implementation of IPE across education and clinical settings. Increasingly, a range of IPE initiatives are being implemented and evaluated which are adding to the growth of evidence for this form of education.Aim: The overall aim of this review is to update a previous BEME review published in 2007. In doing so, this update sought to synthesize the evolving nature of the IPE evidence.Methods: Medline, CINAHL, BEI, and ASSIA were searched from May 2005 to June 2014. Also, journal hand searches were undertaken. All potential abstracts and papers were screened by pairs of reviewers to determine inclusion. All included papers were assessed for metho...
612 citations
Cites background from "A scoping review of interprofession..."
...In doing so, it is anticipated that IPE can improve the quality of care delivered to patients/clients (Brandt et al. 2014; Fung et al. 2015)....
[...]
TL;DR: Interest in interprofessional education and collaborative practice continue to grow but whether IPE improves clinical outcomes is uncertain, and a recent study found that it does not.
Abstract: Interest in interprofessional education (IPE) and collaborative practice continue to grow (Frenk et al., 2010; Cox & Naylor, 2013) but whether IPE improves clinical outcomes is uncertain. A recent ...
420 citations
TL;DR: 39 systematic reviews of CME effectiveness published since 2003 are synthesized, showing CME activities that are more interactive, use more methods, involve multiple exposures, are longer, and are focused on outcomes that are considered important by physicians lead to more positive outcomes.
Abstract: Introduction:Since 1977, many systematic reviews have asked 2 fundamental questions: (1) Does CME improve physician performance and patient health outcomes? and (2) What are the mechanisms of action that lead to positive changes in these outcomes? The article's purpose is to synthesize the systemati
331 citations
146 citations
TL;DR: This guide presents a series of key lessons for colleagues to help them undertake a good quality IPE evaluation, covering a range of methodological, practical and ethical issues.
Abstract: We have witnessed an ongoing increase in the publication of evaluation work aimed at measuring the processes and outcomes related to a range of interprofessional education (IPE) activities and initiatives. Systematic reviews of IPE have, however, suggested that while the quality of evaluation studies is improving, there continues to be a number of empirical weaknesses with this work. In an effort to enhance the quality of IPE evaluation studies, this guide provides a series of ideas and suggestions about how to undertake a robust evaluation of an IPE event. The guide presents a series of key lessons for colleagues to help them undertake a good quality IPE evaluation, covering a range of methodological, practical and ethical issues. These include: the formation of evaluation questions, use of evaluation models and theoretical perspectives, advice about the selection of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods evaluation designs, managing evaluation resources, and ideas about disseminating evaluation results to the broader IPE community. It is anticipated that this guide will assist IPE colleagues in undertaking high-quality evaluation in order to provide valuable evidence for different stakeholders, and also help inform the scholarly knowledge for the interprofessional field.
143 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
31,379 citations
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
"A scoping review of interprofession..." refers methods in this paper
...For this scoping review, we employed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach (Liberati et al., 2009; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009a; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009b), which is organized by five distinct…...
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1995TL;DR: In this article, an intensive study of case study research methods is presented, focusing on the Unique Case Research Questions and the Nature of Qualitative Research Data Gathering Analysis and Interpretation Case Researcher Roles Triangulation.
Abstract: Introduction An Intensive Study of Case Study Research Methods The Unique Case Research Questions The Nature of Qualitative Research Data Gathering Analysis and Interpretation Case Researcher Roles Triangulation Writing the Report Reflections Harper School
22,208 citations
"A scoping review of interprofession..." refers background in this paper
...trustworthiness or applicability for external validity in qualitative research studies (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Stake, 1995; Thyer, 2001)....
[...]
...Sometimes the descriptors of dependability or consistency are used for reliability and trustworthiness or applicability for external validity in qualitative research studies (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Stake, 1995; Thyer, 2001)....
[...]