Interprofessional Education Research: Disciplines, Authorship Practices, Research Design, and Dissemination Trends

A. Olsen, Carly Lupton-Smith, Gary L. Beck Dallaghan, Jacqueline E. McLaughlin
{"title":"Interprofessional Education Research: Disciplines, Authorship Practices, Research Design, and Dissemination Trends","authors":"A. Olsen, Carly Lupton-Smith, Gary L. Beck Dallaghan, Jacqueline E. McLaughlin","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1280218/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background: In 2007, the World Health Organization launched the Programme on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice to emphasize the importance of interprofessional education (IPE). Since then, numerous IPE reviews have focused on what has been implemented and evaluated. The purpose of this review was to explore how IPE has been implemented and evaluated. Methods: The following aspects of IPE research were explored: 1) disciplines included; 2) authorship patterns, 3) assessment focus, and 4) dissemination trends. Abstracts were screened before a full text screening, review, data extraction, analysis and audit. Frequency and percentages were reported for categorical data while means and standard deviations were reported for continuous data. Chi-squared analyses examined differences between groups for categorical variables. Results: Three-hundred and fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Authors from medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools published most frequently, with a majority using quantitative or mixed-methods techniques. Most studies involved a student discipline without an author from that discipline. Most studies also evaluated student perceptions. Studies were published in 98 journals, most of which were interdisciplinary journals, with the largest increase in publications in the most recent year of the review. Conclusion: IPE research has grown substantially over the past 10 years. Consideration should be given to expanding IPE research methodologies, strategically publishing IPE findings, and promoting authorship representation for student disciplines involved in IPE.","PeriodicalId":210599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1280218/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: In 2007, the World Health Organization launched the Programme on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice to emphasize the importance of interprofessional education (IPE). Since then, numerous IPE reviews have focused on what has been implemented and evaluated. The purpose of this review was to explore how IPE has been implemented and evaluated. Methods: The following aspects of IPE research were explored: 1) disciplines included; 2) authorship patterns, 3) assessment focus, and 4) dissemination trends. Abstracts were screened before a full text screening, review, data extraction, analysis and audit. Frequency and percentages were reported for categorical data while means and standard deviations were reported for continuous data. Chi-squared analyses examined differences between groups for categorical variables. Results: Three-hundred and fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Authors from medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools published most frequently, with a majority using quantitative or mixed-methods techniques. Most studies involved a student discipline without an author from that discipline. Most studies also evaluated student perceptions. Studies were published in 98 journals, most of which were interdisciplinary journals, with the largest increase in publications in the most recent year of the review. Conclusion: IPE research has grown substantially over the past 10 years. Consideration should be given to expanding IPE research methodologies, strategically publishing IPE findings, and promoting authorship representation for student disciplines involved in IPE.
跨专业教育研究:学科、作者实践、研究设计和传播趋势
背景:2007年,世界卫生组织启动了跨专业教育和协作实践方案,以强调跨专业教育的重要性。从那时起,大量的国际环境研究中心的审查集中在已经实施和评估的内容上。本综述的目的是探讨IPE是如何实施和评估的。方法:从以下几个方面对国际政治经济学的研究进行探讨:1)包括学科;2)作者模式,3)评估重点,4)传播趋势。摘要在全文筛选、审阅、数据提取、分析和审核之前进行筛选。分类数据报告频率和百分比,连续数据报告均值和标准差。卡方分析检验了组间分类变量的差异。结果:359篇文章符合纳入标准。来自医学、护理和药学学校的作者发表最多,大多数使用定量或混合方法技术。大多数研究涉及学生学科,而没有来自该学科的作者。大多数研究还评估了学生的看法。研究发表在98种期刊上,其中大多数是跨学科期刊,在最近一年的审查中,出版物的增幅最大。结论:IPE研究在过去的10年里有了长足的发展。应考虑扩大国际政治经济学的研究方法,战略性地发表国际政治经济学的研究成果,并促进国际政治经济学学生学科的作者代表性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信