Surveys are widely used in interprofessional education (IPE) research and these often collect free-text data. The potential contribution of free-text data to analysis and interpretation is often missed through separate reporting of qualitative and quantitative results, or free-text analyses being superficial or limited to subsets of data. There is little published guidance on how to maximize the use and integration of free-text comments with quantitative responses in large datasets collected over multiple years. Analysis of all qualitative comments, within the context of their related quantitative answers, enables exploration of changes in participants’ construction of meaning over time. This article describes how we used template analysis to analyze 3,626 free-text responses, collected as part of a five-year survey exploring the impact of an IPE program on health professionals’ attitudes to teamwork and early careers. We outline the main procedural steps undertaken by a team of researchers and we share our insights into the methodological challenges encountered. This article aims to inspire other researchers at the planning stage of research proposals, and assist them with practical ideas during data extraction, management, analysis, and reporting of large free-text datasets. We conclude that template analysis has methodologically sound, pragmatic utility in IPE longitudinal survey research.
Background: Global culture influences health behaviors and attitudes and the way we communicate and solve problems; it can also significantly affect the efficiency of the multicultural and interprofessional healthcare team. This scoping review aims to understand and identify global cultural considerations that exist in interprofessional education (IPE) and that influence the development, implementation, and effectiveness of IPE.
Methods and Findings: The search included peer-reviewed articles focused on both IPE and global culture, also referred to as national, ethnic, or racial culture. There was no limitation placed on levels of learners nor specific health professions. Articles were excluded if they did not explicitly discuss global cultural considerations in IPE. The authors screened 1094 records, and 155 full-text articleswere assessed for eligibility. No eligible papers were found for inclusion yielding an empty review. The most common reasons for exclusion were failure to address global culture and a focus on provider-patient cultural competency as opposed to cultural aspects of IPE.
Conclusions: Despite the recognition of the importance of global culture in all interactions, it is not explicitly addressed within the interprofessional healthcare team or the development and implementation of IPE. Studies addressing culturally congruent teamwork and IPE, and the relationship to culturally inclusive patient care, are needed.
Background: The capability of an interprofessional healthcare team to reach a shared understanding through group reasoning is critical to good healthcare delivery. Models for clinical reasoning have proved useful but remain focused on individual cognitive processes. Whilst interprofessional education has steadily gained real-world traction, it is unclear how interprofessional student groups practice group reasoning when performing online tasks.
Method: We analyzed the group reasoning processes with two teams of health professional students in an online interprofessional education task (n = 13). Two simulated interprofessional team meetings about a palliative case were audio recorded, transcribed, and deductively analyzed to determine the mechanisms of team deliberation using a previously published study of group reasoning.
Results: The reasoning mechanisms outlined in a previous study (informationaccumulating, sense-making, and decision-making) were evident in an analysis of student group reasoning. In particular, students focused on sharing and agreeing on information, and to a lesser extent, recording information.
Conclusion: Attention to the mechanisms of action may be useful to facilitate teaching interprofessional reasoning. Group reasoning may benefit from focusing student attention on these stages: 1) prioritizing and sequencing of options, methods for exposing agreement about shared information, shared understanding of the situation, and options; 2) techniques for critically evaluating information so that opportunities arise to identify when information may disrupt existing understandings; and 3) development of documentation tools to assist recording of the process.
Anciens numéros de Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education