The merit of mandatory interprofessional education for pre-health professionalstudents

Figures & data

Table

Practice points
•Educators must address the existence of harmful stereotypes that are held by students even prior to their matriculation in health professional studies.
•Prior professional knowledge is not necessary for IPE to be effective.
•Even a one-time, short duration exercise may allow for meaningful, positive changes in knowledge, interests, and attitudes.
•Merit exists to offer mandatory IPE for pre-health professional students.
•Additional research must be conducted to determine whether mandatory IPE for pre-health professional students is cost-effective and realistic.

Table 1.  Self-reported knowledge of roles of health professions (pre and post-exercise)

Knowledge of health professionals’ roles and	Dichotomized data (1-5 vs 6-7)		Complete data (1-7)
responsibilities is strong:	% Agree (pre)	% Agree (post)	Mean (pre)	Mean (post)	ANOVA (pre/post)
Chiropractors	8%	29%	3.46	4.69	F(1, 1071) = 152.46 p < 0.001
Nurses	24%	53%	4.60	5.37
Nurse practitioners	16%	48%	3.53	5.04
Occupational therapists	18%	42%	3.59	4.97
Pharmacists	34%	62%	4.63	5.47
Physicians	58%	73%	5.36	5.83
Physiotherapists	24%	47%	4.20	5.14
Social Workers	25%	50%	4.09	5.15
All eight health professions	7%	60%	3.88	5.61
Mean	24%	52%	4.15	5.25

A significant effect of profession was also found (F (7, 1071) = 35.94, p < 0.001).

Table 2.  Self-reported gain in knowledge about health professions (post-exercise)

	Dichotomized (1-5 vs 6-7)	Complete data (1-7)
Gained valuable knowledge about:	% Agree (post)	Mean (post)	Standard Deviation
Chiropractors	48%	5.19	1.570
Nurses	63%	5.42	1.559
Nurse Practitioners	79%	6.02	.968
Occupational therapists	62%	5.61	1.279
Pharmacists	58%	5.40	1.594
Physicians	54%	5.26	1.568
Physiotherapists	61%	5.43	1.452
Social Workers	64%	5.61	1.391
All eight health professions	78%	6.09	.893
Roles of eight health professions	75%	5.94	.985
Anything	83%	6.25	.955
Mean (eight health professions)	61%	5.49	1.423
Mean	66%	5.66	1.292

A significant effect across profession was found (F (7, 1085) = 6.797, p < 0.001).

Table 3.  Self-reported gain in understanding about interprofessionalism (pre and post-exercise)

Understanding of the following aspects	Dichotomized data (1-5 vs 6-7)		Complete data (1-7)
of interprofessionalism is strong:	% Agree (pre)	% Agree (post)	Mean (pre)	Mean (post)	ANOVA (pre/post)
Potential benefits	14%	76%	3.97	5.84	F(1, 310) = 183.43, p < 0.001
Purpose of learning about it	34%	79%	4.76	6.09
Interprofessionalism in general	41%	80%	5.05	5.95
Mean	30%	78%	4.59	5.96

A significant effect of question was also found (F (2, 310) = 35.42, p < 0.001).

Table 4.  Interest in learning more about health professions (post-exercise)

	Dichotomized (1-5 vs 6-7)	Complete data (1-7)
Interest in learning more about health professions	% Agree (post)	Mean (post)	Standard Deviation
Chiropractors	27%	4.43	1.668
Nurses	24%	4.34	1.484
Nurse practitioners	35%	4.87	1.480
Occupational therapists	38%	4.70	1.533
Pharmacists	49%	5.14	1.487
Physicians	68%	5.87	1.279
Physiotherapists	42%	4.93	1.560
Social workers	24%	4.35	1.551
Health professionals in general	74%	6.12	1.051
Mean	42%	4.97	1.455

A significant effect of question was found (F (7,1078) = 24.46, p < 0.001).

Table 5.  Interest in pursuing health professions as a future career (pre and post-exercise)

Interest in pursuing health	Dichotomized data (1-5 vs 6-7)		Complete data (1-7)
professions as future career	% Agree (pre)	% Agree (post)	Mean (pre)	Mean (post)	ANOVA (pre/post)
Chiropractors	9%	15%	2.99	3.19	F(1,1106) = 3.21, p = 0.075
Nurses	11%	7%	2.79	2.87
Nurse practitioners	9%	14%	2.80	3.32
Occupational therapists	14%	13%	3.41	3.33
Pharmacists	27%	34%	4.16	4.16
Physicians	73%	75%	5.86	5.88
Physiotherapists	19%	25%	3.81	4.00
Social workers	8%	6%	2.80	2.89
Health professional in general	80%	85%	6.22	6.43
Mean	28%	30%	3.87	3.64

A significant effect of question was also found (F (7,1106) = 89.48, p < 0.001).

Table 6.  Attitudes towards IPE and practice (pre and post-exercise)

	Dichotomized data (1-5 vs 6-7)		Complete data (1-7)
Attitudes towards interprofessionalism and IPE	% Agree (pre)	% Agree (post)	Mean (pre)	Mean (post)	ANOVA (pre/post)
Interprofessionalism is very important	75%	89%	6.11	6.45	F(1,1224) = 8.99, p = 0.003
Interprofessionalism is very beneficial for patients (r)	79%	86%	5.99	6.24
Interprofessionalism is very beneficial to professions	75%	80%	6.03	6.19
Learning about interprofessionalism is very important (r)	78%	83%	6.02	6.21
All health professional students should learn about interprofessionalism	75%	85%	6.06	6.30
All pre-health professional students should learn about interprofessionalism	66%	80%	5.78	6.20
All BHSc students at McMaster University should learn about interprofessionalism	70%	81%	5.87	6.18
As a result of this exercise, want to learn more about interprofessionalism	57%	64%	5.55	5.65
Interest in participating in additional IPE activities	43%	40%	5.17	5.07
Mean	69%	76%	5.84	6.05

A significant effect of question was also found (F(8,1224) = 39.66, p < 0.001).

Table 7.  Unsolicited reflection on the IPE exercise by a participating student

“I really enjoyed the IPE (exercise) as I feel that I gained exposure to a vast array of health care fields … Activities such as this allow us to witness first hand the true diversity of the health care field and the numerous possibilities for career choices. The case study for example allowed us to relate to scenarios that occur in the real world everyday. I feel that personally, I gained new insight into fields I knew little about, something that is especially important for a student studying health sciences. For example, I had no idea about the difference between a nurse and nurse practitioner … I now see the importance of interprofessionalism in improving the health care system and feel that (exercises) such as this should continue in the future.”