The Creation of an Interprofessional Education (IPE) Strategy Utilising a Delphi Method

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Clinical Teacher Pub Date : 2025-05-04 DOI:10.1111/tct.70098
Nebras Alghanaim, Samantha Rogers, Gabrielle Finn, Jo Hart
{"title":"The Creation of an Interprofessional Education (IPE) Strategy Utilising a Delphi Method","authors":"Nebras Alghanaim,&nbsp;Samantha Rogers,&nbsp;Gabrielle Finn,&nbsp;Jo Hart","doi":"10.1111/tct.70098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Support for interprofessional education (IPE) is growing, with regulatory bodies requiring its inclusion in undergraduate healthcare programmes. Although the IPE Core Competencies and Guidelines offer principles for guiding IPE implementation, they lack practical application guidance. Bridging this gap necessitates tools to translate these frameworks into actionable practices. We developed an IPE strategy to overcome barriers by providing a clear roadmap to IPE implementation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>The study designed a three-round E-Delphi. Initially, the research team created 24 strategic statements by consolidating existing IPE competencies. In Round 1, the panel could accept, reject, modify or add new statements. In Round 2, they could accept, reject or modify the revised statements. By Round 3, the panel either accepted or rejected the final statements. The research team analysed the levels of consensus, set at 80% agreement, and thematically analysed the free-text comments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>The Delphi panel consisted of 41 participants in Survey 1 and 43 in Surveys 2 and 3. The study began with 24 strategic statements across three priority areas. By the end of the Delphi process, this increased to 28 statements. Study consensus levels ranged from 74.29% to 100%, and participant retention rates were 85.4%, 67.4% and 62.7%, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The use of the E-Delphi method demonstrates its value in gathering diverse input, fostering consensus and enhancing the quality and relevance of IPE strategic development by integrating a broad range of perspectives. Further research on the scalability and long-term effects of this IPE strategy is warranted.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Teacher","volume":"22 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/tct.70098","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tct.70098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Support for interprofessional education (IPE) is growing, with regulatory bodies requiring its inclusion in undergraduate healthcare programmes. Although the IPE Core Competencies and Guidelines offer principles for guiding IPE implementation, they lack practical application guidance. Bridging this gap necessitates tools to translate these frameworks into actionable practices. We developed an IPE strategy to overcome barriers by providing a clear roadmap to IPE implementation.

Method

The study designed a three-round E-Delphi. Initially, the research team created 24 strategic statements by consolidating existing IPE competencies. In Round 1, the panel could accept, reject, modify or add new statements. In Round 2, they could accept, reject or modify the revised statements. By Round 3, the panel either accepted or rejected the final statements. The research team analysed the levels of consensus, set at 80% agreement, and thematically analysed the free-text comments.

Findings

The Delphi panel consisted of 41 participants in Survey 1 and 43 in Surveys 2 and 3. The study began with 24 strategic statements across three priority areas. By the end of the Delphi process, this increased to 28 statements. Study consensus levels ranged from 74.29% to 100%, and participant retention rates were 85.4%, 67.4% and 62.7%, respectively.

Conclusion

The use of the E-Delphi method demonstrates its value in gathering diverse input, fostering consensus and enhancing the quality and relevance of IPE strategic development by integrating a broad range of perspectives. Further research on the scalability and long-term effects of this IPE strategy is warranted.

Abstract Image

运用德尔菲法建立跨专业教育策略
对跨专业教育(IPE)的支持正在增长,监管机构要求将其纳入本科医疗保健课程。尽管《国际政治经济学核心能力与指南》提供了指导国际政治经济学实施的原则,但缺乏实际应用指导。弥合这一差距需要将这些框架转化为可操作实践的工具。我们制定了一项IPE战略,通过为IPE实施提供清晰的路线图来克服障碍。方法设计三轮E-Delphi法。最初,研究团队通过巩固现有的IPE能力,创建了24个战略声明。在第一轮中,小组可以接受、拒绝、修改或添加新的陈述。在第二轮中,他们可以接受、拒绝或修改修改后的陈述。到了第三轮,评委会要么接受最终陈述,要么拒绝。研究小组分析了共识的水平,设定为80%的一致,并对自由文本评论进行了主题分析。调查1共有41名参与者,调查2和调查3共有43名参与者。这项研究以24项战略声明开始,涉及三个优先领域。在Delphi过程结束时,这增加到28条语句。研究共识水平从74.29%到100%不等,参与者保留率分别为85.4%、67.4%和62.7%。结论e -德尔菲方法的应用表明,通过整合广泛的观点,它在收集不同的输入、促进共识和提高IPE战略发展的质量和相关性方面具有价值。有必要进一步研究这种IPE策略的可扩展性和长期影响。
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
Clinical Teacher
Clinical Teacher MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
113
期刊介绍: The Clinical Teacher has been designed with the active, practising clinician in mind. It aims to provide a digest of current research, practice and thinking in medical education presented in a readable, stimulating and practical style. The journal includes sections for reviews of the literature relating to clinical teaching bringing authoritative views on the latest thinking about modern teaching. There are also sections on specific teaching approaches, a digest of the latest research published in Medical Education and other teaching journals, reports of initiatives and advances in thinking and practical teaching from around the world, and expert community and discussion on challenging and controversial issues in today"s clinical education.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信