Interprofessional Education and Integrative Healthcare

Determinants of interprofessional collaboration in complementary medicine to develop an educational module "complementary and integrative medicine" for undergraduate students: A mixed-methods study

As use of complementary medicine (CM) is increasing, health professionals may require proper training in CM to offer evidence-based advice to their patients. The aim of this study was to explore interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in CM in order to gain a comprehensive overview of determinants and to facilitate the definition of objectives for an undergraduate interprofessional educational module. Pursuant to a sequential mixed-methods approach, focus groups and individual interviews with health professionals, who actively use CM in patient care, were conducted. All hospital employees at the University Hospital Lübeck, Germany, were asked to complete an online questionnaire that was based on the previously obtained qualitative results. The interviews with 20 participants revealed four main themes: profession-specific aspects, communication, health care system-associated factors, and the influence of CM on interprofessional dynamics. An analysis of the 157 responses in the online questionnaire showed that team meetings (n = 124, 79%) were most frequently stated as promoting IPC. In binary regression analyses, nursing (OR = 6.17 [2.02-18.84]) and medical professions (OR = 3.77 [1.27-11.18]) predicted evidence-based care as enabler for IPC. Hence, teaching professional competencies and an equal understanding of evidence-based medicine seems necessary to promote IPC within CM.

Interdisciplinary Relationship Models for Complementary and Integrative Health: Perspectives of Chinese Medicine Practitioners in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The combination of biomedicine and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is often referred to as integrative medicine. However, the degree to which the medical disciplines are integrated varies between medical settings, and it is believed by some to be impossible due to epistemological and paradigmatic differences. Clinicians' perspectives are important determinants of how different medical disciplines are used together. This study explores the perspectives of experienced Chinese medicine practitioners when asked about the most ethical model (opposition, integration, or pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM.

DESIGN

Thirty-one Chinese medicine practitioners, undertaking a doctoral upgrade program at the Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, participated in this study. Participants were asked to read a publication discussing three models (opposition, integration, and pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM and then discuss, via an online forum within Moodle learning management system, the most ethical model. An inductive content analysis of the forum posts was undertaken to identify common themes, followed by member checking.

RESULTS

The data were found to contain six major and six minor themes. There was a clear preference for pluralism. The Chinese medicine practitioners expressed reservations about the integrative model, and, above all, cared about the quality of patient care. Much dialogue occurred around issues related to a power imbalance within health care, and possible cooptation issues. Paradigmatic differences and a lack of compatibility between biomedical research models and the practice of Chinese medicine were seen as problematic to the validity of research findings. Interprofessional education was viewed as critical for the development of respect, shared patient care, and referrals between clinicians from different disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into the issues associated with combining biomedicine and T&CM that are perceived by Chinese medicine practitioners. Such insights are important for the development and management of clinical settings that provide complementary and integrative health care, especially as the provision of insurance coverage for T&CM increases.

Development and validation of interprofessional learning assessment tool for health professionals in continuing professional development (CPD)

Introduction

Interprofessional learning (IPL) is increasingly recognized as a promising strategy in addressing the burgeoning challenges in healthcare. Its assessment remains to be perplexing and requires accurate measurements. Thus, this study intended to develop a valid and reliable reflective tool in assessing IPL as a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) outcome.

Methods

A one-group post-posttest pre-experimental design with tool development was employed to establish the validity and reliability of the “Inventory of Reflective Vignette–Interprofessional Learning” (IRV-IPL). This tool was developed from an extensive literature review and designed with three segments to assess interprofessional competencies before, after, and what if scenarios using vignettes. After it was validated by education experts (n = 5) and written consent forms were signed by the participants, the IRV-IPL was pilot tested among healthcare professionals (n = 10) for analysis and improvement. During the actual implementation, it was administered to healthcare professionals (n = 45) who participated in a university-provided CPD event. Collected data underwent validity and reliability testing.

Results

IRV-IPL generated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.98), and across all segments of collaboration (α = 0.96), coordination (α = 0.96), cooperation (α = 0.96), communication (α = 0.97), and commendation (α = 0.98). Items exhibited significantly positive large correlations (r > 0.35, p < 0.05) in all segments showing beneficial measures for postdictive validity in recalling prior interprofessional competencies, and predictive validity in estimating interprofessional learning as an outcome of CPD and alternative interventions.

Conclusion

This study provided a piece of groundwork evidence on the use of IRV-IPL as a reflective assessment tool for interprofessional learning in CPD contexts. Further studies are essential to explore the educational utility of IRV framework in crafting relevant assessments and to establish construct validity of IRV-IPL using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.