Interprofessional supervision among allied health professionals: a systematic scoping review

Figures & data

Table 1. Keywords and Boolean operators.

Construct	Search Terms
Supervision	Supervision OR supervisor* OR supervise* OR supervising
Interprofessional	Interprofessional OR inter-professional OR interdisciplinary OR inter-disciplinary OR “cross disciplinary” OR cross-disciplinary
Allied Health	“Allied health” OR psychologist* OR “speech and language therapist*” OR “speech pathologist*” OR “occupational therapist*” OR physiotherapist* OR “physical therapist” OR “social worker*”

Figure 1. Prisma diagram outlining the search process.

Table 2. Summary of study information.

#	Author(s)	Year	Country	Methodological approach (based on MMAT)	MMAT summary count	Sample size	Disciplines included (with n’s/% where reported)	Setting(s)	Gender of participants (with n’s/%, where reported)	Ethnicity of participants (with %, where reported)	Core focus on IPS	Theoretical frameworks used	Standardised tools used	Themes evident
1	Beddoe, L. & Howard, F.	(2012)	New Zealand	Quantitative descriptive	Yes: 4 Can’t tell: 1	243	Psychologists (28.2%), social workers (71.8%)	Various settings	The majority of participants were female (80.7%)	European (68.7%), Maori (19.3%), Pacific peoples (4.1%), Asian (2.9%), other diverse ethnic groups (13.2%)	Yes	No	No	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
2	Bedford, S., Repa, L. & Renouf, A.	(2020)	Canada	Qualitative	Yes: 1 Can’t tell: 4	3	All participants were doctoral students in clinical psychology	University	All participants were female	Not reported	Yes	No	No	2, 5, 6
3	Berger, C. & Mizrahi, T.	(2001)	United States	Quantitative descriptive	Yes: 3 Can’t tell: 2	651	All participants were social workers	Hospitals	Not reported	Not reported	No	No	No	1
4	Bogo, M., Paterson, J., Tufford, L. & King, R.	(2011)	Canada	Qualitative	Yes: 5	77	Nurses (n = 23), social workers (n = 29), occupational therapists (n = 5), recreation therapists (n = 10), case workers/child and youth workers (n = 9), stress management therapists (n = 1)	Centre for addictions and mental health	Male (18%, n = 14), female (82%, n = 63)	Not reported	Yes	No	No	1, 2, 3, 4, 6
5	Boshoff, K., Murray, C., Worley, A. & Berndt, A.	(2020)	Australia	Scoping review (qualitative analysis)	Yes: 5	N/A	The disciplines represented most were occupational therapy, physiotherapy, pharmacy, social work and speech pathology	N/A (scoping review)	Not reported	Not reported	No	No	No	2
6	Bronstein, L., Kovacs, P. & Vega, A.	(2007)	United States	Mixed Methods	Yes: 5	179	All participants were social workers	Various settings	The majority of participants were female (84%)	The majority of participants were white (84%)	No	No	No	1
7	Callicott, K. & Leadbetter, J.	(2013)	United Kingdom (implied)	Qualitative	Yes: 5	10	Educational psychologists (n = 6), specialist early years teachers (n = 4)	Schools	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No	1, 3, 4, 5
8	Chipchase, L., Allen, S., Eley, D., McAllister, L. & Strong, J.	(2012)	Australia	Qualitative	Yes: 5	12	Medical students (n = 2), physiotherapy students (n = 2), occupational therapy students (n = 2), speech pathology students (n = 2), occupational therapist (n = 1), speech pathologist (n = 1), physiotherapists (n = 2)	Orphanages and schools for children with disabilities (international clinical placement)	All participants were female	Not reported	Yes	No	No	1, 2, 3, 6
9	Crocket, K., Cahill, F., Flanagan, P., Franklin, J., McGill, R., Stewart, A., Whalan, M. & Mulcahy, D.	(2009)	New Zealand	Qualitative	Yes: 5	6	Social workers (n = 2), clinical psychologist (n = 1), counselors (n = 2), counsellor/psychologist (n = 1)	Various settings	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No	1, 2, 3, 5, 6
10	Dickie, R., Bartle, E., Jackman, K. & Bonney, D.	(2019)	Australia	Qualitative	Yes: 4 Can’t tell: 1	4	Nurses (n = 2), pharmacist (n = 1), social worker (n = 1)	Hospital	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No	3, 5
11	Eliassen, M., Henriksen, N.O. & Moe, S.	(2018)	Norway	Qualitative	Yes: 5	14	Physiotherapists (n = 7), home trainers (n = 7)	Reablement teams	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	Yes	No	4
12	Feller, K. & Berendonk, C.	(2020)	Switzerland	Qualitative	Yes: 4 Can’t tell: 1	21	Medical residents (n = 6), supervising physicians (n = 7), diabetes nurses (n = 4), nutritionists (n = 2), psychologists (n = 2)	Hospital	Not reported	Not reported	No	Yes (social identity theory used as a sensitizing concept)	No	2, 5, 6
13	Graham, N. & Miller, S. I.	(1974)	United States	Qualitative	Can’t tell: 4 No: 1	2	All participants were social workers	Hospital	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No	2, 4, 5
14	Hair, H. J.	(2013)	Canada	Mixed methods	Yes: 5	636	All participants were social workers	Various settings	The majority of participants were female (86%)	The majority of participants were white	No	No	No	6
15	Hare, R. T. & Frankena, S. T.	(1972)	United States	Qualitative	Can’t tell: 4 No: 1	8	Psychologists, social workers	Child guidance clinic	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No	1, 2, 4, 5,
16	Hjelle, K. M., Skutle, O., Alvsvåg, H. & Førland, O.	(2018)	Norway	Qualitative	Yes: 5	27	Physiotherapists (n = 7), occupational therapists (n = 6), nurses (n = 3), social educator (n = 1), auxiliary nurses (n = 4), care assistants (n = 6)	Reablement teams	All participants were female	Not reported	No	No	No	4, 6
17	Hutchings, J., Cooper, L., & O’Donoghue, K.	(2016)	New Zealand	Quantitative descriptive	Yes: 3 Can’t tell: 1 No: 1	54	All participants were social workers	Various settings	Female (77.8%, n = 42), male (22.2%, n = 12)	New Zealand European or Pakeha (68.5%, n = 37), other European (11.1%, n = 6), Maori (5.6%, n = 3), New Zealand European and Maori (7.4%, n = 4), Other (3.7%, n = 2), New Zealand European and Pacific Peoples (1.9%, n = 1), and Asian (1.9%, n = 1)	Yes	No – a framework was developed	No	1, 2, 3, 5, 6
18	Longman, J. M., Barraclough, F. L. & Swain, L. S.	(2020)	Australia	Quantitative descriptive	Yes: 4 Can’t tell: 1	163	Physiotherapy students (51%, n = 83), occupational therapy students (20%, n = 32), speech pathology students (29%, n = 48)	School and residential aged care facility	Not reported	Not reported	No	No	Yes	2
19	Mangiameli, J., Hamiduzzaman, M., Lim, D., Pickles, D. & Isaac, V.	(2021)	Australia	Qualitative	Yes: 5	10	Interprofessional clinical educators, registered nurses, speech pathologists, mental health workers, occupational therapists, Aboriginal health worker and health students	Rural disability services	Female (n = 9), male (n = 1)	Not reported	No	No	No	2
20	Nielsen, J., Jacobsen, C. H. & Mathiesen, B.B.	(2012)	Denmark	Quantitative descriptive	Yes: 3 Can’t tell: 2	273	All participants were psychologists	Various settings	Not reported	Not reported	No	No	Yes	2
21	Osborne, C. & Burton, S.	(2014)	United Kingdom (implied)	Mixed methods	Yes: 1 Can’t tell: 4	270	All participants were Emotional Literacy Support Assistants (supervised by psychologists)	Schools	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No	2, 4, 6
22	Robiner, W. N., Hong, B. A. & Ward, W.	(2021)	United States	Quantitative descriptive	Yes: 1 Can’t tell: 4	138	All participants were psychologists	Academic health centres	The majority of participants were female (70.4%)	White (80.6%), Non-Hispanic (92.9%)	No	No	No	2
23	Skinner, K., Robson, K. & Vien, K.	(2021)	Australia	Qualitative	Yes: 5	6	Occupational therapist (n = 1), physiotherapists (n = 2), podiatrist (n = 1), and speech pathologists (n = 2)	Orphanage for children with disabilities (international clinical placement)	Not reported	Not reported	No	Yes	No	6
24	Sweifach, J. S.	(2019)	United States	Quantitative descriptive	Yes: 4 Can’t tell: 1	426	All participants were social workers	Various settings	Female (87%, n = 308), male (13%, n = 46) (of those who indicated their gender)	The majority of participants were white (91.4%, n = 318)	No	No	No	2
25	Townend, M.	(2005)	United Kingdom	Qualitative	Yes: 5	170	Psychiatrists (n = 9), nurses (n = 69), social workers (n = 2), psychologists (n = 44), general practitioner (n = 1), teacher/lecturer (n = 2), occupational therapists (n = 6), counselors (n = 13), other (n = 11)	Various settings	Not reported	Not reported	Yes	No	No	1, 2, 4, 5, 6
26	Voytenko, V. L., VanOrman, B. T., Jaarsma, R. D., Bishop, T. W., Mavis, B. E. & Achtyes, E. D.	(2021)	United States	Qualitative	Yes: 2 Can’t tell: 3	5	Clinical psychologists (n = 3), academic psychologist (n = 1), psychiatrist (n = 1)	Hospital (psychiatry and family medicine resident programs)	All participants were male	All participants were white	No	Yes	No	1, 3, 6
27	Wedlock, M. & Turner, M.	(2017)	United Kingdom	Qualitative	Yes: 5	15	Educational psychologists (n = 8); Family support key workers (n = 7)	Pre-schools	Male (n = 3), female (n = 26)	Not reported	Yes	No	No	3, 4, 6

Table 3. Summary of disciplines engaged in IPS with one another.

Discipline	Receiving supervision from	Providing supervision to
Psychologists	Other	Occupational therapy Social work Other
Social workers	Psychology	Occupational therapy
	Other	Physiotherapy Speech and language therapy Other
Occupational therapists	Psychology	Physiotherapy
	Physiotherapy	Speech and language therapy
	Speech and language therapy	Other
	Other
Speech and language therapists	Occupational therapy	Physiotherapy
	Social work	Occupational therapy
	Physiotherapy	Other
	Other
Physiotherapists	Social work	Speech and language therapy
	Speech and language therapy	Occupational therapy
	Occupational therapy	Other
	Other

Note. The term “other” is used to represent other disciplines that are not the focus of this review.

Figure 2. Visual representation of themes.

Table

SECTION	ITEM	PRISMA-ScR CHECKLIST ITEM	REPORTED ON PAGE #
TITLE
Title	1	Identify the report as a scoping review.	1
ABSTRACT
Structured summary	2	Provide a structured summary that includes (as applicable): background, objectives, eligibility criteria, sources of evidence, charting methods, results, and conclusions that relate to the review questions and objectives.	1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale	3	Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Explain why the review questions/objectives lend themselves to a scoping review approach.	2–7
Objectives	4	Provide an explicit statement of the questions and objectives being addressed with reference to their key elements (e.g., population or participants, concepts, and context) or other relevant key elements used to conceptualize the review questions and/or objectives.	7
METHODS
Protocol and registration	5	Indicate whether a review protocol exists; state if and where it can be accessed (e.g., a Web address); and if available, provide registration information, including the registration number.	7–8
Eligibility criteria	6	Specify characteristics of the sources of evidence used as eligibility criteria (e.g., years considered, language, and publication status), and provide a rationale.	9
Information sources*	7	Describe all information sources in the search (e.g., databases with dates of coverage and contact with authors to identify additional sources), as well as the date the most recent search was executed.	8
Search	8	Present the full electronic search strategy for at least 1 database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.	8
Selection of sources of evidence†	9	State the process for selecting sources of evidence (i.e., screening and eligibility) included in the scoping review.	9–10
Data charting process‡	10	Describe the methods of charting data from the included sources of evidence (e.g., calibrated forms or forms that have been tested by the team before their use, and whether data charting was done independently or in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.	10–11
Data items	11	List and define all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made.	11
Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence	12	If done, provide a rationale for conducting a critical appraisal of included sources of evidence; describe the methods used and how this information was used in any data synthesis (if appropriate).	10
Synthesis of results	13	Describe the methods of handling and summarizing the data that were charted.	11–12
RESULTS
Selection of sources of evidence	14	Give numbers of sources of evidence screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally using a flow diagram.	12
Characteristics of sources of evidence	15	For each source of evidence, present characteristics for which data were charted and provide the citations.	13–15
Critical appraisal within sources of evidence	16	If done, present data on critical appraisal of included sources of evidence (see item 12).	12–13
Results of individual sources of evidence	17	For each included source of evidence, present the relevant data that were charted that relate to the review questions and objectives.	13–16
Synthesis of results	18	Summarize and/or present the charting results as they relate to the review questions and objectives.	16–25
DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence	19	Summarize the main results (including an overview of concepts, themes, and types of evidence available), link to the review questions and objectives, and consider the relevance to key groups.	25–30
Limitations	20	Discuss the limitations of the scoping review process.	30–31
Conclusions	21	Provide a general interpretation of the results with respect to the review questions and objectives, as well as potential implications and/or next steps.	32
FUNDING
Funding	22	Describe sources of funding for the included sources of evidence, as well as sources of funding for the scoping review. Describe the role of the funders of the scoping review.	33

Beddoe, L., & Howard, F. (2012). Interprofessional supervision in social work and psychology: Mandates and (inter) professional relationships. The Clinical Supervisor, 31(2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2013.730471

 Google Scholar

Bedford, S., Repa, L., & Renouf, A. (2020). Supervision in interprofessional education: Benefits, challenges, and lessons learned. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000167

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berger, C., & Mizrahi, T. (2001). An evolving paradigm of supervision within a changing health care environment. Social Work in Health Care, 32(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v32n04_01

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bogo, M., Paterson, J., Tufford, L., & King, R. (2011). Interprofessional clinical supervision in mental health and addiction: Toward identifying common elements. The Clinical Supervisor, 30(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2011.564961

 Google Scholar

Boshoff, K., Murray, C., Worley, A., & Berndt, A. (2020). Interprofessional education placements in allied health: A scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 27(2), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2019.1642955

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bronstein, L., Kovacs, P., & Vega, A. (2007). Goodness of fit: Social work education and practice in health care. Social Work in Health Care, 45(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v45n02_04

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Callicott, K., & Leadbetter, J. (2013). An investigation of factors involved when educational psychologists supervise other professionals. Educational Psychology in Practice, 29(4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2013.853649

 Google Scholar

Chipchase, L., Allen, S., Eley, D., McAllister, L., & Strong, J. (2012). Interprofessional supervision in an intercultural context: A qualitative study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26(6), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2012.718813

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Crocket, K. (2009). Possibilities and limits of cross-disciplinary supervision: An exploratory study. New Zealand Journal of Counselling, 29(2), 25–43.

 Google Scholar

Dickie, R., Bartle, D. E., Jackman, K., & Bonney, D. (2019). Clinical supervisors’ experiences of using an interprofessional clinical supervision model in an acute care setting. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 33(6), 812–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1594728

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eliassen, M., Henriksen, N. O., & Moe, S. (2018). Physiotherapy supervision of home trainers in interprofessional reablement teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 33(5), 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2018.1541877

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Feller, K., & Berendonk, C. (2020). Identity matters - perceptions of inter-professional feedback in the context of workplace-based assessment in diabetology training: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-1932-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Graham, N., & Miller, S. I. (1974). The social worker in undergraduate medical education. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 20(3–4), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076407402000312

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hair, H. J. (2013). The purpose and duration of supervision, and the training and discipline of supervisors: What social workers say they need to provide effective services. The British Journal of Social Work, 43(8), 1562–1588. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs071

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hare, R. T., & Frankena, S. T. (1972). Peer group supervision. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42(3), 527–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1972.tb02519.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hjelle, K. M., Skutle, O., Alvsvåg, H., & Førland, O. (2018). Reablement teams’ roles: A qualitative study of interdisciplinary teams’ experiences. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 11, 305–316. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S160480

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hutchings, J., Cooper, L., & O’Donoghue, K. (2016). Cross-disciplinary supervision amongst social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 26(4), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol26iss4id26

 Google Scholar

Longman, J., Barraclough, F., & Swain, L. (2020). The benefits and challenges of a rural community-based work-ready placement program for allied health students. Rural and Remote Health, 20(3), 5706–5706. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH5706

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mangiameli, J., Hamiduzzaman, M., Lim, D., Pickles, D., & Isaac, V. (2021). Rural disability workforce perspective on effective inter‐disciplinary training: A qualitative pilot study. The Australian Journal of Rural Health, 29(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12719

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nielsen, J., Jacobsen, C. H., & Mathiesen, B. B. (2012). Novice supervisors’ tasks and training: A descriptive study. Nordic Psychology, 64(3), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2012.731312

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Osborne, C., & Burton, S. (2014). Emotional literacy support assistants’ views on supervision provided by educational psychologists: What EPs can learn from group supervision. Educational Psychology in Practice, 30(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2014.899202

 Google Scholar

Robiner, W. N., Hong, B. A., & Ward, W. (2021). Psychologists’ contributions to medical education and interprofessional education in medical schools. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 28(4), 666–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-020-09730-8

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Skinner, K., Robson, K., & Vien, K. (2021). Interprofessional education: A unique approach to addressing the challenges of student assessment. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 35(4), 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1780202

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sweifach, J. S. (2019). A look behind the curtain at social work supervision in interprofessional practice settings: Critical themes and pressing practical challenges. European Journal of Social Work, 22(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1357020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Townend, M. (2005). Interprofessional supervision from the perspectives of both mental health nurses and other professionals in the field of cognitive behavioural psychotherapy. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12(5), 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2005.00878.x

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Voytenko, V. L., VanOrman, B. T., Jaarsma, R. D., Bishop, T. W., Mavis, B. E., & Achtyes, E. D. (2021). Getting involved in training the next generation of physicians: Examples of practicing psychologists in psychiatry and family medicine residency programs. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 52(3), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000346

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wedlock, M., & Turner, M. (2017). ‘You kind of pull back the layers’: The experience of inter-professional supervision with educational psychologists. Educational and Child Psychology, 34(3), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2017.34.3.130

 Google Scholar