Interprofessional Education Collaborative Competencies and the Public Health Professional

Abstract

Interprofessional education involves programs that foster the partnerships of two or more individuals studying different health professions, thus allowing students to learn with and about the other professions. The Interprofessional Education Collaborative Competencies were updated in 2016 with a threefold purpose that included a greater emphasis on population health, thereby encouraging the health professions who typically work on an individual level to broaden their understanding of the field of public health. In the professional preparation of public health professionals and health education specialists, both foundational competencies and areas of responsibility imply and/or explicitly state that public health professionals and health education specialists must be able to work with interprofessional teams. Interprofessional collaborative learning activities have been recommended to be offered early and often during health professions training. Not only do public health and health education students benefit from inclusion in these interprofessional education activities but other health professions students also benefit from exposure to public health students and population health concepts. Public health and health education have contributed to leadership in interprofessional education initiatives and are well-situated to lend population health expertise to improve health care delivery as well as population and patient health outcomes.

Keywords

interprofessional education collaborative learning population health

In health care today, interprofessional, team-based, patient/family-centered clinical practice is recommended to improve patient care and safety. In 2009, the Interpro-fessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) was established by six national associations in the United States representing dentistry, nursing, medicine, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, and public health. IPEC was charged to develop a list of competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice. These competencies were released in 2011 and included four core competencies (Values/Ethics for Interprofessional Practice, Roles/Responsibilities, Interprofessional Communi-cation, Teams and Teamwork) and their associated subcompetencies (IPEC Expert Panel, 2011).

The competencies have always encouraged interprofessional collaboration as an overarching domain and have been previously mapped side-by-side with the Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework (Association for Prevention Teaching and Research, 2013). The competencies were updated in 2016 with a threefold purpose that included a greater emphasis on population health, thereby encouraging the health professions who typically work on an individual level to broaden their understanding of the field of public health. The Collaborative also encourages interactive, team-based coursework and interprofessional learning experiences in health professions education. Interprofessional education involves programs that foster the partnerships of two or more individuals studying different health professions, allowing students to learn with and about other professions. Teamwork interventions, such as interprofessional education, have been shown to improve clinical teamwork and overall team performance (IPEC, 2016).

Shift to Population Health Focus

The definition of interprofessional collaborative practice is, “When multiple health workers from different professional backgrounds work together with patients, families, [careers], and communities to deliver the highest quality of care” (World Health Organization, 2010). The changes for interprofessional education as a shift from individual-level competencies to a shared competency-based framework can be summarized into two major changes. The first change recognizes interprofessional collaboration as a singular domain in order to better serve the updated emphasis on population health competencies. As such, they have been transformed into the four core competencies and form the basis on which IPEC practice is defined. The second change consists of a shift in focus to improving the relationship between health care systems changes and population-based approaches (IPEC, 2016). In order to achieve improved health outcomes and health equity across the lifespan, this new framework needed to better integrate a focus on population health within the current health care system. Population health is broadly defined as the health outcomes that affect groups of individuals, including the distributions of such outcomes within the group (Kindig & Stoddart, 2003). Broadening the scope of IPEC practice by strengthening the population health component would likely increase the capacity of the “team” to focus more on health outcomes as a result of this update (IPEC, 2016).

The premise of the competencies and subcompetencies is directed toward improving the extent to which processes, strategies, activities, assessments, and systems are aligned across practice settings, applicable across professions, and outcome driven (IPEC, 2016). There are several changes worth noting as a result of the transition from topic areas to expanded competencies. First, there is an increased focus on population health as indicated in Competency 2: Use of knowledge of one’s own role and those of other professions to appropriately assess and address the health care needs of patients and to promote and advance the health of populations (bold is updated in new competencies). Second, there is evidence of increased emphasis on population health in Competency 4: Apply relationship-building values and the principles of team dynamics to perform effectively in different team roles to plan, deliver, and evaluate patient/population centered care and population health programs and policies that are safe, timely, efficient, effective, and equitable (bold is updated in new competencies).

There are several notable changes related to the new subcompetencies that illustrate the importance of population health. Within the Values/Ethics (VE) competencies, there is evidence of updated language in VE1, VE4, and VE9 that identify language specific to population health. In the Roles/Responsibilities (RR) competencies, there is further evidence in the same regard in RR3, RR5, and most important, in RR10. RR10 is “Describe how professionals in health and other fields can collaborate and integrate clinical care and public health interventions to optimize population health” (IPEC, 2016, p. 12). In the Interprofessional Communication (CC) subcompetencies, there is evidence of updated language to reflect a focus in population health in CC3 and CC8. Finally, in the Team and Teamwork subcompetencies (TT), subcompetency TT3 and TT6 contain updated language specific to population health.

Professional Preparation

The professional preparation of public health professionals and health education specialists is largely dictated by two guiding documents within the profession. These documents are the Accreditation Criteria for Schools of Public Health and Public Health Programs as defined by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH; 2016) and the Areas of Responsibility, Competencies, and Subcompetencies for Health Education Specialists as defined by the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc. (NCHEC; 2015). These documents serve as the framework for which many higher education programs in public health base their curriculum for majors. CEPH was originally established 1974 by the Association of Schools of Public Health, an organization comprising administrators, faculty, and students of accredited schools of public health in the United States and charged with the responsibility of overseeing schools of public health accreditation, previously the responsibility of the American Public Health Association. CEPH’s role eventually expanded to also include accreditation of public health programs that were outside of schools of public health. CEPH seeks to assure best practice in public health education and training for undergraduate and graduate programs and universities (CEPH, 2018b). Currently, there are more than 60 Schools of Public Health accredited by CEPH and more than 100 accredited Public Health Programs and Standalone Baccalaureate Programs in Public Health (CEPH, 2018a).

The Areas of Responsibility, Competencies, and Subcompetencies for Health Education Specialists were most recently updated in 2015 by way of the Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis (HESPA), an 18-month project that reaffirmed and further defined the practices of entry-level and advanced-level health education specialists. HESPA results yielded 141 entry-level subcompetencies, 76 advanced 1–level subcompetencies, and 41 advanced 2–level subcompetencies, which clearly delineate the work of health education specialists. HESPA was based on a sample of 10,871 health education specialists and solicited feedback on their job practices, making the document an appropriate foundation for public health curricula (NCHEC & Society for Public Health Education, n.d.).

In consideration of the competencies necessary for public health professionals, both CEPH’s list of Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Foundational Competencies and NCHEC’s Areas of Responsibility imply and/or explicitly state that public health professionals must be able to work with interprofessional teams. At the undergraduate level, CEPH notes that an undergraduate curriculum should include concepts and experiences pertaining to networking and organizational dynamics, an implication that experience with interprofessional teams is important. More explicitly, at the master’s level, foundational competencies include, “Perform effectively on interprofessional teams” (CEPH, 2016, p. 18) specifically noting that “interprofessional” refers to engagement with those outside of public health, not just different disciplines within public health. At the doctoral level, “Propose interprofessional team approaches to improving public health” is noted as a foundational competency (CEPH, 2016, p. 19).

Within the NCHEC’s Areas of Responsibility, Compe-tencies, and Subcompetencies for Health Education Specialists, terminology of interprofessional teams is not explicitly stated but is implied in multiple competencies and subcompetencies by the use of the word “partners.” On 14 occasions in the document, the term “partners” was used to describe the work of the health education specialist. Of these 14 occurrences, 12 of them were directed at the work of the entry-level health education specialist and two at the work of the advanced-level specialist. For example, Competency 2.1, “Involve priority populations, partners, and other stakeholders in the planning process” (NCHEC, 2015, p. 3) is further delineated into three more subcompetencies all expected for the entry-level health education specialist to possess. Subcompetencies specific to advanced-level health education specialists include, “Facilitate discussions with partners and other stakeholders regarding program resource needs,” 5.3.2, and “Elicit feedback from partners and other stakeholders,” 5.3.5 (NCHEC, 2015, pp. 8-9). Implicit and explicit recognition of the interprofessional teams by both CEPH and NCHEC is evidence of the recognized value of interprofessional teams and is a fundamental aspect of public health curriculum.

It is established that both CEPH and NCHEC support the work of public health professionals on interprofessional teams, but specifically, the unique contribution of public health professionals and health education specialists on interprofessional health care teams should be defined. The addition of, “promote and advance health of populations” and “plan, deliver, and evaluate . . . population health programs and policies” (IPEC, 2016, p. 10) to the four core competencies largely sums up the work of a health education specialist. NCHEC’s Areas of Responsibility can be summarized to state that health education specialists assess needs, and subsequently plan, implement, evaluate, and manage programs and policies to address said needs, while serving as a resource and advocating for the health of individuals and populations (NCHEC, 2015). CEPH also includes as a foundational domain; assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation; for a public health bachelor’s degree and addresses assessment, planning, and evaluation as foundational competencies for graduate students (CEPH, 2016). Furthermore, a review of the 10 Essential Public Health Services, a list of 10 services that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) declare all communities should be implementing, establishes a clear focus on population health. Population health is also a clear focus of the revised interprofessional competencies (IPEC, 2016). Specifically, the 10 Essential Services are the following:

Monitor health status to identify and solve community health problems

Diagnose and investigate health problems and health hazards in the community

Inform, educate, and empower people about health issues

Mobilize community partnerships and action to identify and solve health problems

Develop policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts

Enforce laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety

Link people to needed personal health services and assure the provision of health care when otherwise unavailable

Assure competent public and personal health care workforce

Evaluate effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based health services

Research for new insights and innovative solutions to health problems (CDC, 2018, para. 2)

CEPH notes that the 10 Essential Services must be included as part of the foundational knowledge of graduate-level public health students (CEPH, 2016). Ultimately, the work and training of public health professionals and health education specialists clearly aligns with the changes made to the core competencies, making the inclusion of those professionals on interprofessional health care teams essential.

Interprofessional Education Activities

As interprofessional education continues to grow, it is currently offered to health professions students not only in the classroom but also in the simulation center, online, and in fieldwork experiences. The most recent systematic reviews and reviews of literature noted overall positive outcomes and improvements in participants’ interprofessional knowledge, attitudes, communication, and teamwork skills (Fox et al., 2017; Nelson, White, Hodges, & Tassone, 2017; Reeves et al., 2016; Reeves, Palaganas, & Zierler, 2017). Specifically for interprofessional communication, a recent integrative review by Foronda, MacWilliams, and McArthur (2016) noted the effectiveness of physician-nurse interprofessional trainings using simulated patients to enhance these providers’ interprofessional communication skills. In addition, Guraya and Barr (2018), in a recent review and analysis of pre–post studies, validated previous studies that reported pre–post interprofessional knowledge, attitude, and skill improvements in health professions students who participated in interprofessional education activities.

However, participant behavior or performance change had limited support, and weaknesses in research design and rigor continue to exist (Reeves et al., 2016; Reeves et al., 2017). There is limited evidence, too, to support positive changes from interprofessional education on future patient health outcomes and health systems and culture change (Reeves et al., 2016; Reeves et al., 2017). Weak methodology and nonhomogeneous samples in the interprofessional literature as well as poor alignment between pre-licensure interprofessional training and post-licensure continuing education for interprofessional practice may have contributed to inadequate effectiveness in outcome studies. Interprofessional education is still deemed important, though. Even with mixed results, private and government organization in the United States and globally support interprofessional education and practice as a strategy to prepare a more responsive health care workforce to manage the possibility of a future health care provider shortage (Bianchi & Bressan, 2019).

Because interprofessional education attempts to train health profession students to be successful team members as they enter the health and health care workforce, interprofessional collaborative learning activities have been recommended to be offered early and often during health professions training (Khan, Shahnaz, & Gomathi, 2016). A recent review noted most interprofessional curricular offerings were centered on use of team-based communication tools and simulated scenarios (Nelson et al., 2017). Another listed the most common teaching strategies (in addition to traditional coursework) used at this level as follows: simulation, field-centered experiences, patient-centered case studies, and health education activities (Khan et al., 2016). According to a recent survey by Clay et al. (2018), interprofessional education activities for health professions students are being increasingly offered and emphasized in U.S. academic health centers. Specifically since 2010, frequency of offerings in interprofessional assessment using simulation, field-centered experiences, and coursework has increased.

For simulation, interactive communication and web-based interprofessional education strategies were reviewed by Curran et al. (2015) and found to be well-received by health professions students. Although the technologies may have contributed to interprofessional knowledge and attitude improvements in participants, the low number of studies and their lack of rigorous study design limit findings. Interprofessional education activities for health professions students using high-fidelity simulation are also increasingly being implemented. In a review, however, lack of rigor in research design presents a challenge to enthusiastically recommending its use for interprofessional learning (Palaganas, Brunette, & Winslow, 2016).

For fieldwork, after participating in interprofessional workshops embedded into nursing and medical student fieldwork rotations, participants perceived improved team collaboration skills (Brashers et al., 2016). Health profession student participants also reported improved interprofessional knowledge and skills after participating in community clinic–based fieldwork (Suiter, Davidson, McCaw, & Fenelon, 2015) as well as teamwork attitude change after participating in a patient home-visiting field experience (Renschler, Rhodes, & Cox, 2016). Health profession students’ self-reports of core interprofessional competency attainment and future commitment to interprofessional practice were also noted after a self-directed, elective fellowship (Blue, Mitcham, Koutalos, Howell, & Leaphart, 2014).

For case studies, public health students participating in an online, interprofessional case study competition reported appreciating other professions, valuing interprofessional communication, and applying interprofessional competencies to their future work with patients and coalitions (Ketcherside, Puett, Banez, & Maher, 2015). In a program using online virtual patients, health professions students perceived improvements in their teamwork, collaboration, and interprofessional communication skills (Wong, Leslie, Soon, & Norman, 2016). For health education activities, through a community partnership model, health professions students implemented a health education activity for senior citizens and improved their self-reported interprofessional knowledge of health profession roles and teamwork collaboration (Diwan, Perdue, Lee, & Grossman, 2015).

Population health–focused activities are increasingly included in these interprofessional teaching strategies. Public health has contributed to leadership in interprofessional education initiatives, and schools and programs of public health are well-situated to lend population health expertise to improve health care delivery as well as population and patient health outcomes. Public health, although involved in many interprofessional initiatives, still needs to play a bigger role (Thibault, 2015). Health education specialists, with their broad range of responsibilities and competencies, are particularly well-suited for interprofessional collaborative practice to improve individual and population health (Gambescia, 2017).

Not only do public health and health education students benefit from inclusion in interprofessional education activities but other health profession students also benefit from exposure to public health students and population health concepts. For public health and health education students, in a longitudinal study of public health professionals who participated in a skill-based interprofessional teamwork activity as public health undergraduates, most perceived their current professional teamwork attitudes and skills as positive (Ketcherside, Rhodes, Powelson, Cox, & Parker, 2017). Professional role perception of nursing by public health education students, too, was significantly improved after interprofessional program participation in two studies (White, Lambert, Visker, Banez, et al., 2019; White, Lambert, Visker, Lasser, et al., 2019). For other health professions students, in a study using an online, team-based interprofessional activity, including public health students on teams improved overall team awareness of the social determinants of health (Duffy, Ronnebaum, Stumbo, Smith, & Reimer, 2017). Other health profession students also improved their perceptions of population health after an interprofessional activity focused on public health immunizations (Brisolara et al., 2018). Additionally, compared with the course taught without a focus on social determinants of health, health profession student participant course evaluations were higher for the same course when taught with a focus on the determinants (Singh, McKenzie, & Knippen, 2018).

Through these diverse strategies and combinations of strategies, team-based communication, professional respect, and positive team relationships seem be enhanced (Khan et al., 2016). Planning, implementing, and evaluating interprofessional education activities and experiences, however, is a multifaceted undertaking. Successful integration of interprofessional education into health and health care preprofessional education includes the following: creating learning objectives based on core interprofessional competencies; identifying a health topic that cross-cuts multiple professions such as chronic disease or geriatric health care; using multiple, active-learning teaching strategies such as case study or simulation; determining if the activity will be for introduction, emphasis, or reinforcement; and providing student feedback and program evaluation (El-Awaisi et al., 2016). It is recommended that a variety of active-learning interprofessional activities structured to be more complex over time be offered frequently throughout health profession education (Khan et al., 2016).

Summary

Since the initial establishment of the IPEC in 2009 and release of the first set of competencies in 2011, there has been significant progress that has contributed to the need to revise the framework of interprofessional collaborative practice. Evidence of this progress in the past 5 years has contributed to the acknowledgement that IPEC is remarkably different now than ever. One clear distinction in the updated version of the IPEC competencies arises from the recognition that IPEC now represents a singular domain of focus as opposed to multiple domains as it was initially proposed. The impact of creating a singular domain as an umbrella for IPEC broadens the scope of practice and creates pathways for shared assessment and evaluation efforts within and between health professions. Additionally, this broader reach will create more opportunity for members and university partners to achieve the Triple Aim (improve the patient experience of care, improve the health of populations, and reduce the per capita cost of health care; IPEC, 2016). Thus, the broadened scope of IPEC generates opportunity for additional stakeholders within this context and adaptability in integrating practice as it aligns to health professions contained within any given educational unit.

Health care and public health both support positive population health outcomes. Breaking down silos in order to work within interprofessional health care teams and population-based collaborative teams depends on a culture change toward interprofessional teamwork and communication. A reorganization of health professions education that integrates interprofessional education from health professions student training through provider continuing education is, therefore, recommended (Graffunder & Sakurada, 2016).

Moving forward, to achieve continuity from interprofessional training to practice, more administrative support and resources are needed (Bianchi & Bressan, 2019). Those who deliver the training in academic or professional settings also need opportunities to learn and practice interprofessional competencies. Public health and health education students and professionals should expand their collaborative knowledge and skills by participating in a variety of educational opportunities to obtain continuing education in the approach. Attending professional meetings to learn about and discuss interprofessional practices with those from other disciplines may also lead to more innovation in the field (Ryland, Akers, Gowland, & Malik, 2017).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Carol Cox

References

Association for Prevention Teaching and Research. (2013). Advancing interprofessional clinical prevention and population health education. Curriculum development guide for health professions faculty. Retrieved from https://nebula.wsimg.com/cc40b1a82d8b79b4ac9413234ca9f84c?AccessKeyId=DC06780E69ED19E2B3A5&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Bianchi

Bressan

(2019). Effectiveness of interprofessional education and new prospects. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75(1), 14-16. doi:10.1111/jan.13772

Blue

Mitcham

Koutalos

Howell

Leaphart

(2014). Attaining interprofessional competencies through a student interprofessional fellowship program. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29, 253-255. doi:10.3109/13561820.2014.954283

Brashers

Erickson

J. M.

Blackhall

Owen

J. A.

Thomas

S. M.

Conaway

M. R.

(2016). Measuring the impact of clinically relevant interprofessional education on undergraduate medical and nursing student competencies: A longitudinal mixed methods approach. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 30, 448-457. doi:10.3109/13561820.2016.1162139

Brisolara

K. F.

Gasparini

Davis

A. H.

Sanne

Andrieu

S. C.

James

. . . Gunaldo

T. P.

(2018). Supporting health system transformation through an interprofessional education experience focused on population health. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 33, 125-128. doi:10.1080/13561820.2018.1530646

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). The public health system and the 10 essential public health services. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/publichealthgateway/publichealthservices/essentialhealthservices.html

Clay

M. C.

Garr

Greer

Lewis

Blue

Evans

(2018). An update on the status of interprofessional education and interprofessional prevention education in U.S. academic health centers. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 10, 61-66. doi:10.1016/j.xjep.2017.12.003

Council on Education for Public Health. (2016). Accreditation criteria: Schools of public health and public health programs. Retrieved from https://media.ceph.org/wp_assets/2016.Criteria.pdf

Council on Education for Public Health. (2018a). List of accredited schools and programs. Retrieved from https://ceph.org/about/org-info/who-we-accredit/accredited/#programs

10.

Council on Education for Public Health. (2018b). Organizational info and polices. Retrieved from https://ceph.org/about/org-info/

11.

Curran

Reid

Reis

Doucet

Price

Alcock

Fitzgerald

(2015). The use of information and communications technologies in the delivery of interprofessional education: A review of evaluation outcome levels. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29, 541-550. doi:10.3109/13561820.2015.1021002

12.

Diwan

Perdue

Lee

S. E.

Grossman

B. R.

(2015). Health promotion practice and interprofessional education in aging: Senior wellness fairs. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 37, 145-166. doi:10.1080/02701960.2015.1005290

13.

Duffy

P. A.

Ronnebaum

J. A.

Stumbo

T. A.

Smith

K. N.

Reimer

R. A.

(2017). Does including public health students on interprofessional teams increase attainment of interprofessional practice competencies? Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 117, 244. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2017.042

14.

El-Awaisi

Anderson

Barr

Wilby

K. J.

Wilbur

Bainbridge

(2016). Important steps for introducing interprofessional education into health professional education. Journal of Taibah University of Medical Sciences, 11, 546-551. doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.09.004

15.

Foronda

MacWilliams

McArthur

(2016). Interprofessional communication in healthcare: An integrative review. Nurse Education in Practice, 19, 36-40.

16.

Fox

Onders

Hermansen-Kobulnicky

C. J.

Nguyen

Myran

Linn

Hornecker

(2017). Teaching interprofessional teamwork skills to health professional students: A scoping review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32, 127-135. doi:10.1080/13561820.2017.1399868

17.

Gambescia

(2017). Message from the editor in chief: Health education specialists and the interprofessional education movement. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 3, 75-76.

18.

Graffunder

Sakurada

(2016). Preparing health care and public health professionals for team performance: The community as classroom. NAM Perspectives, 6(4). doi:10.31478/201604b

19.

Guraya

S. Y.

Barr

(2018). The effectiveness of interprofessional education in healthcare: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 34, 160-165. doi:10.1016/j.kjms.2017.12.009

20.

Interprofessional Education Collaborative. (2016). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: 2016 update. Washington, DC: Author.

21.

Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. (2011). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative.

22.

Ketcherside

Puett

Banez

Maher

(2015). Interprofessional clinical education case study competition from the public health perspective. Health & Interprofessional Practice, 2(3). doi:10.7710/2159-1253.1090

23.

Ketcherside

Rhodes

Powelson

Cox

Parker

(2017). Translating interprofessional theory to interprofessional practice. Journal of Professional Nursing, 33, 370-377. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.03.002

24.

Khan

N. S.

Shahnaz

S. I.

Gomathi

K. G.

(2016). Currently available tools and teaching strategies for the interprofessional education of students in health professions: Literature review. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, 16(3). doi:10.18295/squmj.2016.16.03.003

25.

Kindig

Stoddart

(2003). What is population health? American Journal of Public Health, 93, 380-382.

26.

National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc. (2015). Areas of responsibility, competencies, and sub-competencies for health education specialists. Retrieved from https://www.speakcdn.com/assets/2251/hespa_competencies_and_sub-competencies.pdf

27.

National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc., & Society for Public Health Education, Inc. (n.d.). Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis (HESPA) study: Executive summary. Retrieved from https://www.speakcdn.com/assets/2251/executive_summary.pdf

28.

Nelson

White

C. F.

Hodges

B. D.

Tassone

(2017). Interprofessional team training at the prelicensure level. Academic Medicine, 92, 709-716. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001435

29.

Palaganas

J. C.

Brunette

Winslow

(2016). Prelicensure simulation-enhanced interprofessional education. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 11, 404-418. doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000175

30.

Reeves

Fletcher

Barr

Birch

Boet

Davies

. . . Kitto

(2016). A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Medical Teacher, 38, 656-668. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2016.1173663

31.

Reeves

Palaganas

Zierler

(2017). An updated synthesis of review evidence of interprofessional education. Journal of Allied Health, 46(1), 56-61.

32.

Renschler

Rhodes

Cox

(2016). Effect of interprofessional clinical education programme length on students’ attitudes towards teamwork. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 30, 338-346. doi:10.3109/13561820.2016.1144582

33.

Ryland

Akers

Gowland

Malik

(2017). How do we develop health educators for the future using and interprofessional approach? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 31(1), 5-7.

34.

Singh

McKenzie

Knippen

K. L.

(2018). Challenges and innovations in interprofessional education: Promoting a public health perspective. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 33, 270-272. doi:10.1080/13561820.2018.1538114

35.

Suiter

S. V.

Davidson

H. A.

McCaw

Fenelon

(2015). Interprofessional education in community health contexts: Preparing a collaborative practice-ready workforce. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 1, 37-46. doi:10.1177/2373379914561470

36.

Thibault

G. E.

(2015). Public health education reform in the context of health professions education reform. American Journal of Public Health, 105(Suppl. 1). doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302407

37.

White

Lambert

Visker

Banez

Lasser

Cichon

. . . Cox

(2019). Public health education student stereotypes of other health professions before and after an interprofessional education program. Health Professions Education, 5, 120-125.

38.

White

Lambert

Visker

Lasser

Banez

Puett

. . . Cox

(2019). Exploring public health and nursing students’ perceptions of each other’s professional roles. Nursing Education Perspectives, 40, 171-173.

39.

Wong

Leslie

J. J.

Soon

J. A.

Norman

W. V.

(2016). Measuring interprofessional competencies and attitudes among health professional students creating family planning virtual patient cases. BMC Medical Education, 16(1). doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0797-8

40.

World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice (WHO Reference Number: WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/hrh/resources/framework_action/en/