Sustainability of Interprofessional Education: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional education (IPE) is an approach that can improve health care quality, contribute to the qualification of health care professionals, and train undergraduate students. Although this strategy has made significant progress in the last decade, integration, sustainability, and institutional growth are still priorities worldwide. Thus, maintaining strategies is essential for their full development and evolution. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify discussions about the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both). METHODS: The scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. This scoping review protocol follows the JBI Reviewers' Manual, with 6 stages: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; data extraction and coding; analysis and interpretation of results; and consultation with stakeholders. Two independent and blind reviewers will evaluate and select studies available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish based on the eligibility criteria. Searches will be conducted on LILACS, Embase, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. The main research question is as follows: What have been the sustainability strategies for IPE actions? This scoping review will incorporate studies (empirical or theoretical-reflective) that address strategies or actions (or both) for IPE sustainability. They must present a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach and be available in full text. Data on strategies or actions for IPE sustainability will be extracted and inserted into a spreadsheet for analysis. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative analysis will identify meanings and patterns through thematic analysis. Thus, the aim is to present the compiled findings in tables and charts. RESULTS: The database search was conducted on March 22, 2024. In April and May 2024, duplicate studies were excluded. From July to November 2024, study selection will be carried out. In December 2024, data extraction and tabulation will take place, as well as consultation with stakeholders. The aim is to publish the results in scientific journals in January 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol will guide this scoping review to identify discussions on the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both); summarize the definitions and institutions that develop or promote IPE; and present the main recommendations for the area under study. Additionally, possible research gaps can be identified to guide future studies. This review will shed light on existing knowledge gaps and the current state of research, which could provide support for future research, programs, and policy responses to foster collaboration and interprofessional practice and, consequently, improve the quality of user care. This information will be useful in supporting decision-making by government officials, managers, teachers, facilitators, and students in the implementation, maintenance, and development of IPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 5VNJS; https://osf.io/5vnjs/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60763.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.136 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.021 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".