Interprofessional education readiness among health science learners: 3-year cohort

Abstract

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is an essential component of patient-centered care and interprofessional education (IPE) training is mandatory across Canadian healthcare programs. Positive IPE experiences may be influenced by students’ pre-existing experiences, attitudes and perceptions about learning with students from other programs. However, this has only been explored in small cohorts, without considering yearly differences in students’ perceptions. The focus of this study was to evaluate the readiness for IPE in a subgroup of incoming first year students in the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), McMaster University from 2019 to 2021.

First year students in the FHS (e.g. health professions and bachelor of health sciences) were invited and randomly allocated to complete the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) using Q-methodology or a 5-point Likert scale. However, this study will report on the results from the Q-methodology portion of the RIPLS. Students ordered the 19 statements of the RIPLS on a Q-sort table with a scale ranging from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree), with 0 for neither disagreement nor agreement. Participants also provided written feedback to justify statements ranked -3 or +3. Data was analyzed using QFACTOR program in STATA and by-person factor analysis was used to identify factors (i.e., groups of students similarly rated Q-sorts). The research team subjectively labelled factors according to the statements that were loaded onto each factor. Participant characteristics (i.e., age, sex, program, and degree) for each factor were summarized and compared using Chi-square tests and ANOVA.

A total of 785 students were invited to complete the RIPLS Q-sort and 253 (32%) responded. From those, 198 students (25%; mean age 21.2 [SD=3.8] years) loaded into three factors: Personal learning (n=85); Delivery of healthcare (n=65) and Collaborative learning (n=48). Participants loaded in Factor 2 (mean age= 19.7 [SD=3.0] years) were younger than those in Factor 1 and 3 (mean age= 21.7 [SD=4 .0] years, p=0.006; mean age= 22.4 [SD=3.8] years, p=0.001). There were statistically significant differences across the Factors for program (professional vs. general; p=0.01), degree (undergraduate vs. graduate; p=0.01), but no differences between factors for gender (p=0.59).

From 2019 to 2021, incoming FHS students were sorted into 3 factors, each with its own IPE value. Differences in IPE value may be related to the students’ age, program, and degree. These results provide an impression of incoming students’ perception of IPE and considerations for IPE training development.