Outcomes of interprofessional education for pharmacy students: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional education (IPE) refers to a teaching and learning method in which students from two or more professions learn about, from, and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes. A systematic review was performed to investigate the current practice and the effectiveness of IPE in pharmacy education. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP China Science and Technology Journal, and WanFang were searched from inception to September 20, 2024, using search terms such as interprofessional, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, IPE, pharmacy, and pharmaceutical education. Studies were screened and included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies reporting the outcome differences between pharmacy students participating in IPE activities and those receiving lecture-based learning. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2 and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Detailed information including the studies' general information, research methods, and results were collected. Primary outcomes including pharmacy students' interprofessional competence, readiness for and attitudes towards IPE, class satisfaction, and professional knowledge were analyzed with meta-analysis or reported descriptively. RESULTS: Seven RCTs and seven cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Eight studies reported that IPE demonstrated a positive impact on pharmacy students' interprofessional competence (p < 0.05). Three studies showed that IPE enhanced students' readiness for participating in interprofessional learning (p < 0.05). Four studies revealed that IPE significantly improved the attitude of pharmacy students towards IPE (p < 0.0001). The meta-analysis of the two cohort studies showed that IPE significantly improved the Attitudes Towards Health Care Teams (ATHCT) scale scores (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.22-0.60). Students who participated in IPE activities were generally satisfied with the course (average score > 4.0 out of 5.0). Apart from embedded in courses, some novel IPE programs were conducted, such as outpatient clinics operated by interprofessional students. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed that IPE was widely used in pharmacy education. IPE enhanced pharmacy students' interprofessional competence, class satisfaction, and their readiness for and attitudes towards interprofessional learning. The effect of IPE on professional knowledge remained controversial across studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".