Empirically and theoretically - where next?

Empirically, I would argue that there are four key areas which we need to concentrate on in order to develop the interprofessional field in the next five to ten years.  

First, we need to employ more qualitative work to generate more data related to actually observing the interactive processes which occur during interprofessional activities – learning, facilitating and collaborating.  

Second, we need to focus our empirical work to provide a better understanding of the translation of interprofessional activities into collaborative behaviour, enhanced practice and the delivery of care.  

Third, we need to undertake economic analyses of IPE and IPP to begin to generate data into the actual costs and benefits of these activities.  

Fourth, we need to move beyond single site studies, to engage with colleagues in other organizations and undertake multi-institution studies that will provide broader empirical inferences that can build a more comprehensive evidence base.  Theoretically, I would argue we need to ensure that such perspectives become a core part of the work which is undertaken developing and studying IPE and IPP activities.  Also, that such work begins to problematize (our everyday assumptions) in order to generate a more critical approach to understanding the field. 

(Scott Reeves, Editor-in-Chief)

To read more see: Ideas for the development of the interprofessional field. Journal of Interprofessional Care; 24:217-219.

The need for sociological theories

Theoretically, within the interprofessional field we still have some way to travel. Encouragingly, in the past decade we have seen a steady growth in the literature of adult learning principles, social psychology theories, organizational theories, systems approaches and psychodynamic perspectives.  Although the use of these different theories has been enhancing and deepening our knowledge about IPE and IPP, the still field remains, in large part, under-theorized, as authors continue to overlook the use of theory in their work.  A further issue compounds this situation.  In general, there is one perspective – sociology – which has traditionally been poorly represented in the field.  The limited use of sociological perspectives within the interprofessional field is noteworthy as it has further limited our understanding of some key dimensions of IPE and IPP.  For example, the use of this perspective can provide some informative insights into the evolution of the health and social care professions and how interprofessional hierarchies and imbalances of legitimacy emerged and continue to thrive.  Importantly, sociology can provide some much needed critical framing of interprofessional activities to understand how micro interactions between professions are enacted within larger political, social and economic structures.

(Scott Reeves, Editor-in-Chief)

To read more see: Ideas for the development of the interprofessional field. Journal of Interprofessional Care; 24:217-219.

Podcast

We welcome you to listen to the new and innovative Journal of Interprofessional Care audio podcast, where we will be interviewing different people in the field of IPE and IPC.


JIC podcast now available at:
http://informahealthcare.com/loi/jic

Welcome!

Welcome to the new Journal of Interprofessional Care blog!  

Our aim with this blog is to provide a range of insights about a variety of critical issues affecting the interprofessional field. Specifically, the blog will explore, assess and discuss areas linked to both interprofessional education and interprofessional practice such as assessment approaches, evaluation designs, research methodologies, use of theories, conceptual developments. We also aim to cover a broad range of health, social care and welfare sectors, contexts and countries. We hope you enjoy the blog and feel able to join us in examining and debating the key areas linked to interprofessional care. 

(Scott Reeves, Editor-in-Chief)

The need for evidence

We need to generate good quality evidence to help us understand the processes, outcomes and impact (positive, neutral, harmful) of the things we do in order to advance our knowledge and inform our practices and policies.  At present, empirically, we know from the findings of systematic reviews and other literature syntheses that interprofessional education (IPE) mainly rests on a large number of descriptive studies. We also know that this research tends to be undertaken in the form of small single-site studies of pilot IPE activities, which largely focus on presenting short term (self-reported) learner outcomes concentrated on changes to attitudes, perceptions, knowledge and skills.  Although as a result of this empirical focus, we have a poorer understanding of long term outcomes of IPE on individual and/or collective behaviour of the participating professionals.  We also have a limited understanding of the learning/teaching processes that occur within IPE, which means we still struggle to know empirically, for example, what elements contribute to an effective interprofessional facilitation.  Similarly, we have a poor idea of patient/client perspectives, and little insight into the organizational issues which underpin the development and delivery of this form of education.
(Scott Reeves, Editor-in-Chief)

To read more see: Ideas for the development of the interprofessional field. Journal of Interprofessional Care; 24:217-219.