Evaluating a three-year home-based interprofessional education program: Student, lecturer and community outcomes at a Thai university
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. Interprofessional education (IPE) promotes collaborative practice through transformative learning, yet evidence on the longitudinal outcomes of home-based IPE for students, educators, and communities remains limited.
Objective. This research aims to evaluate the outcomes of interprofessional education (IPE) by examining its impacts on students, lecturers, and communities.
Methods. The mixed methods study was conducted in three target samples: three cohorts of students (n=1 304) from the 2016, 2017, and 2018 academic years; lecturers (n=54), both groups were drawn from six faculties (Medicine, Pharmacy, Architecture, Nursing, Informatics, and Veterinary Sciences); and patients (n=150) and the representatives (n=18) from seven communities in the Muang municipality and its primary care units.
Results. Across the three cohorts of students, 868 students responded (response rate 66.63%). Students’ attitudes towards IPE increased significantly after
participation in the IPE programme. Students’ team performance, assessed by lecturers after their second patient home visit, was higher than after their first visit, with both visits yielding scores above 70%. Participation also generated new knowledge and fostered innovative thinking. Patient satisfaction with IPE home visits exceeded 80%. Levels of approval of IPE among both lecturers and community members were also greater than 80%.
Conclusion. Both qualitative and quantitative findings showed improvements in students’ attitudes towards IPE, benefits for lecturer’s and high levels of patient satisfaction with home-based IPE. IPE at MSU achieved beneficial outcomes across all three perspectives: students, lecturers and communities.
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The AJHPE is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
1. World Health Organization (WHO). Framework for action on Interprofessional education & collaborative
practice. Geneva; WHO; 2010. http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/framework action/en/index.html (accessed
25 September 2023).
2. Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. Strengthen the knowledge base and practice for collaborative,
patient-centred practice. Vancouver (BC): University of Brithis Columbia; 2019.
3. Shakhman LM, Omari OA, Arulappan J, Wynaden D. Interprofessional Education and Collaboration: Strategies
for Implementation. Oman Med J 2020;35(3):e160. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2020.83
4. Langlois S, Xyrichis A, Daulton JB, Gilbert J, Lackie K, Lising D, MacMillan K, Najjar G, Pfeifle AL, Khalili
H. The COVID-19 crisis silver lining: interprofessional education to guide future innovation. J Interprof Care
2020;34(5):587-592. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1800606
5. Buring SM, Bhushan A, Broeseker A, Conway S, Duncan-Hewitt W, Hansen, L, Westberg S. Interprofessional
education: Definitions, student competencies, and guidelines for implementation. Am J Pharm Educ 2010;73(4):59.
https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730459
6. International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP). Interprofessional Education in a Pharmacy Context: Global
Report 2015. Hague: International Pharmaceutical Federation; 2015.
7. Ploylearmsang C, Tongsiri S, Poophalee T, Khamwan V, Bupachai U, Tookjit S, Promraksa A. Interprofessional
Education for humanized elderly home care: a collaboration among 6 faculties –medicines, pharmacy, nursing,
veterinary science, informatics, and architecture, urban design & creative arts at Mahasarakham University. 11th
National Academic Seminar on the Disables 2019 Bangkok: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang;
2019. p.208-215.
8. Chuenkongkaew W. Interprofessional Education (IPE). National Health Professional Education Foundation,
Sub-committee of Interprofessional Education; 2014. http://www.healthprofessionals21thailand.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/Book-IPE-Fin.pdf (accessed 25 September 2023).
9. Ploylearmsang C, Tongsiri S, Pirikannont M, Srisaknok T. Effects of Home-Based Care Inter-Professional
Education on Students’ Outcomes: Mahasarakham University Experiences. Med Sci Educ 2021;31(2):677-685.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01244-8
10. Sethasathien S. A Model of Interprofessional Education (IPE) in Department of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Udonthani Hospital. ASEAN J Rehab Med 2015;25(2):65-70. https://doi.org/10.14456/jtrm.2015.12
11. Sarakshetrin A, Sriyasak A, Ketin V, Rongmuang D. A Development of Interprofessional Education Learning
Model for Health Promotion among the Elderly in the Community. J Health Nurs Res. 2019;35(2):140-152.
12. Van Lierop M, Van Dongen J, Janssen M, Smeets H, van Bokhoven L, Moser A. Jointly discussing care plans
for real-life patients: The potential of a student-led interprofessional team meeting in undergraduate health
professions education. Perspect Med Educ 2019;8(6):372-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00543-6
13. Tucker K, Wakefield A, Boggis C, Lawson M, Roberts T, Gooch J. Learning together: clinical skills teaching for
medical and nursing students. Med Educ 2013;37(7):630-637. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01558.x
14. McNair R, Stone N, Sims J, Curtis C. Australian evidence for interprofessional education contributing to
effective teamwork preparation and interest in rural practice. J Interprof Care 2005;19(6):579-594. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13561820500412452
15. Jacobsen F, Fink AM, Marcussen V, Larsen K, Hansen BT. Interprofessional undergraduate clinical learning: Results
from a three-years project in a Danish Interprofessional Training Unit. J Interprof Care 2009;23(1):30-40. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13561820802490909
16. Hamada S, Haruta J, Maeno T, et al. Effectiveness of an Interprofessional education program using team-based
learning for medical students: A randomized controlled trial. J Gen Fam Med 2009;21(1):2-9. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jgf2.284
17. Seaman K, Saunders R, Williams E, Harrup-Gregory J, Löffler H, Lake F. An examination of students’
perceptions of their interprofessional placements in residential aged care. J Interprof Care 2017;(31):147-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1262338
18. Janwittayanuchit I, et al. Knowledge management report for the academic year 2017. Bang Chalong, Thailand:
Huachiew Chalermprakiet University; 2017. Unpublished institutional report.