A scoping review of interprofessional collaborative practice and education using the lens of the Triple Aim

Figures & data

Table I. Article type code.

Code	Classification	Description
P	Program or research report	An interprofessional education or collaborative practice program or activity is described. May include some data, analysis or research methods. Activities could include developing programs, data collection tools, planning processes, drafting competency models, conducting qualitative or quantitative research or collecting data.
O	Opinion/position paper	Thoughts about interprofessional education and collaborative practice. No research or program development presented.
S	Summary or meta-analysis of prior articles	Review of existing literature or research.
U	Unknown/other	Also code as U if there is no abstract.

Table II. Level of interprofessionalism code.

Code	Classification	Description
I	Interprofessional	Two or more professions learning or practicing interprofessional competencies: teamwork, communication, ethics and/or professional roles. Includes abstracts that claim interprofessional activities, even if it is not clear which professions or competencies.
M	Multiprofessional	Two or more professions working side by side for any purpose.
N	Not interprofessional (uniprofessional)	Focused on one profession or not on professions at all. Also, if the professions described are not health care practitioners
U	Unknown/Other	Also code as U if there is no abstract or if it is unclear if multiple professions are involved.

Figure 1. Article selection flowchart by reviewer inclusion criteria.

Table III. Frequency and percent of ICP/IPE literature descriptors 2008–2013 (n = 496).

Variable and factors	Frequency	Percent
Article content
Assessment/evaluation of ICP/IPE program	254	51.2
Research into IP practice	133	26.8
Combination of assessing  ICP/IPE instruments and programs	42	8.5
Development or description of  ICP/IPE program	32	6.5
Assessment/evaluation of  ICP/IPE instrument(s)	14	2.8
Models or competencies	13	2.6
Development or description of  IP instrument(s)	6	1.2
Other	2	0.4
Article classification for research into IP practice papers
Collaborative practice	83	62.4
Interprofessional education	50	37.6
Country
Canada	161	32.5
US	115	23.2
UK	101	20.4
Australia/Asia	48	9.7
Scandinavia	40	8.1
Other^a	31	6.3
Health system type
Universal coverage	372	75.0
USA	115	23.2
Other	9	1.8
Study setting
Higher education – 1 institution	162	32.7
Health care practice – multiple sites	132	26.6
Health care practice – 1 site	79	15.9
Combination of higher education and practice sites	63	12.7
Higher education – multiple institutions	46	9.3
Other	14	2.8
Sample size range
<50	274	55.2
50–99	69	13.9
100–299	78	15.7
≥300	75	15.1
Methodology
Mixed methods	125	25.2
Qualitative methods	167	33.7
Quantitative methods	204	41.1
Number of professions
Unclear	95	19.2
1	38	7.7
2–4	214	43.1
5–8	103	20.7
9 or more	46	9.3

^aOther countries included: Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Israel, Iran, Mexico, Italy, Chile, India, Nepal, Hungary, Honduras, Switzerland, Nigeria and Spain.

Table IV. Frequency and percent of professions included in reviewed literature (2008–2013; n = 496).

Variables and factors	Frequency	Percent
Nursing	309	62.2
Medicine	288	57.9
Physical therapy	138	27.8
Pharmacy	120	23.1
Occupational therapy	116	23.3
Social work	111	22.3
Other professions^a	87	17.5
Mental and behavioral health	53	10.7
Healthcare assistants	52	10.5
Nutrition/dietetics	50	10.1
Audiology	40	8.0
Dentistry	32	6.4
Midwifery	29	5.8
Health administration	26	5.2
Diagnostic radiography	20	4.0
Paramedic	16	3.2
Medical laboratory science	15	3.0
Dental hygiene	10	2.0
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)	8	1.6
Veterinary medicine	6	1.2

^aOther professions included: pastoral/spiritual care, engineering, business, respiratory therapy, and “Volunteers” with no other professional identified.

Table V. Characteristics of papers classified as research into interprofessional education/collaborative practice (n = 133).

Variables and factors	Frequency	Percent
Papers with an identifiable Triple Aim-related outcome
No Triple Aim health-related outcome	108	81.2
At least one Triple Aim health-related  outcome	22	16.5
At least two Triple Aim health-related  outcomes	3	2.3
At least three Triple Aim health-related  outcomes	0	0
Methods
Qualitative	68	51.1
Quantitative	41	30.8
Mixed	24	18.0
Study setting
Higher education – 1 institution	22	16.5
Health care practice – multiple sites	48	36.1
Health care practice – 1 site	23	17.3
Combination of higher education  and practice sites	14	10.5
Higher education – multiple institutions	20	15.0
Other	6	4.5
Sample size
<50	82	61.7
50–99	17	12.8
100–299	11	8.3
≥300	23	17.3
Leval of analysis for study findings
Practice-based process	79	59.4
Individual level skills, knowledge and attitudes	28	21.0
Organization level change	22	16.5
Unclear	4	3.0
Article classification
Collaborative practice	83	62.4
Interprofessional education	50	37.6