Does Online Interprofessional Case-Based Learning Facilitate Collaborative Knowledge Construction?

Figures & data

Box 1 Scenario and Learning Objectives of Online CBL Activities

Scenario A 17-year-old with 34-week pregnant woman (G1P0A0) came to the Basic Emergency Obstetrics and Neonatology Services of a Public Health Center with complaints of headache since two days ago. She had no appetite although sometimes she felt hungry. Previous examinations revealed that she had anemia and was suggested to take Fe supplement.

CBL 1 (First meeting): 3 hours Learning objectives: After studying the scenario and to be able to dig up information from patient that will be needed to diagnose the patient’s health problem and to determine nursing diagnosis, students are expected to  1. identify patient problems and determine possible causes of patient health problems  2. discuss the list of questions to ask during the history taking (All professions must prepare questions for patient)  3. discuss the list of examinations to be carried to gather patient’s data  4. discuss the diagnostic procedures required

CBL 2 (Third meeting): 3 hours Based on the data that the students gathered from anamnesis and examinations in the second meeting (previous meeting), students are expected to be able to  1. diagnose the patient’s health problems  2. discuss patient management including the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, nursing care and home care (if needed)  3. discuss list of education for patient and family members

Figure 1 Online IPE activities.

Table 1 Characteristics of the Participants

	Medical Student		Midwifery Student		Nursing Student		Total
	N=204		N= 39		N= 233		N=476
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Sex
Male	48	23	0	0	38	16	86	18.1
Female	156	77	39	100	195	84	390	81.9
Year entry
2019	204	100	0	0	233	100	437	91.8
2018	0	0	39	100	0	0	39	8.2

Table 2 Mean Scores of MPARS

Knowledge Construction Activities	Medical Student		Midwifery Student		Nursing Student		p
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Students can conclude the discussion	4.29	0.7	4.16	0.61	3.59	0.9	<0.001
Students can distinguish the main topic and additional topics during the discussion	4.20	0.67	4.22	0.6	3.67	0.89	<0.001
Students can ask critical questions	4.11	0.80	4.13	0.83	3.41	1.02	<0.001
Students can correct misconceptions made by other students.	4.13	0.73	4.11	0.84	3.44	0.95	<0.001
Students can contribute in improving understanding of the topics discussed	4.28	0.71	4.31	0.68	3.62	0.97	<0.001
Total Constructive activity score	21.02	2.98	20.93	2.9	17.73	4.2	<0.001
Collaborative Activities	Medical Student		Midwifery Student		Nursing Student		p
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Students have a positive influence on the group	4.36	0.74	4.35	0.65	3.76	0.94	<0.001*
Students are responsible for the group	4.38	0.68	4.17	0.73	3.74	1.01	<0.001*
Students can work with all group members	4.38	0.72	4.27	0.68	3.81	0.97	<0.001*
Students are willing to share knowledge / knowledge and information	4.26	0.798	4.43	0.67	3.84	0.92	<0.001*
Students have a commitment to the group	4.29	0.77	4.28	0.70	3.73	0.95	<0.001*
Total Collaborative activity Score	21.68	3.23	21.52	2.7	18.90	4.3	<0.001*
Motivation Activity	Medical Student		Midwifery Student		Nursing Student		p
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
This student is very motivated in carrying out SGD	4.22	0.76	4.09	0.73	3.36	0.96	<0.001*
This student participated well	4.38	0.52	4.31	0.63	3.74	1.01	<0.001*
This student actively participated during the brainstorming session	4.21	0.77	4.19	0.67	3.49	1.02	<0.001*
This student contributes more than other students	3.76	0.91	3.97	0.85	3.24	1.07	<0.001*
Total Motivation Score	16.59	2.63	16.57	2.36	14.04	3.69	<0.001*

Note: *Mean scores were significantly difference based on One Way ANOVA test.

Figure 2 Beckhard’s model for effective team building.