﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD with MathML3 v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article
    xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
    xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="review-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJER</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Open Journal of Educational Research</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2770-5552</issn>
      <issn pub-type="ppub"></issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Science Publications</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31586/ojer.2026.6366</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJER-6366</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
          <subject>Review Article</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>
          Research on the Application of Interprofessional Education in Patient Safety Education
        </article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Lin</surname>
<given-names>Zi</given-names>
</name>
<xref rid="af1" ref-type="aff">1</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Wei</surname>
<given-names>Min</given-names>
</name>
<xref rid="af1" ref-type="aff">1</xref>
<xref rid="cr1" ref-type="corresp">*</xref>
</contrib>
      </contrib-group>
<aff id="af1"><label>1</label> Center of Excellence, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China</aff>
<author-notes>
<corresp id="c1">
<label>*</label>Corresponding author at: Center of Excellence, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
</corresp>
</author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>20</day>
        <month>06</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>6</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>20</day>
          <month>04</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="rev-recd">
          <day>09</day>
          <month>06</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>18</day>
          <month>06</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="pub">
          <day>20</day>
          <month>06</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>&#xa9; Copyright 2026 by authors and Trend Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
        <license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
          <license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <abstract>
        This review of research from 2010 to 2025 shows that while interprofessional education (IPE) effectively reshapes how students approach patient safety&#x02014;boosting both their collaborative attitudes and communication skills&#x02014;it still struggles to bridge the gap between the classroom and the bedside. While models like high-fidelity simulation show promise, there is a distinct lack of hard evidence linking this training to actual changes in clinical behavior or improved patient health. Moving forward, the field needs to overcome practical hurdles like scheduling conflicts and rigid medical hierarchies by shifting focus from student feedback to real-world clinical outcomes, eventually folding IPE into a more standardized, integrated medical curriculum.
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd-group><kwd>Interprofessional Education; Patient Safety; Medical Education; Clinical Practical Training; Systematic Review</kwd>
</kwd-group>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec1">
<title>Introduction</title><title>1.1. Patient Safety: From Individual Error to System Defect</title><p>Patient safety is a core issue in modern healthcare quality management. The landmark report To Err Is Human, released by the Institute of Medicine in 1999, pointed out that tens of thousands of deaths occur annually in the United States due to medical errors, emphasizing the systemic nature of medical harm [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R1">1</xref>]. Subsequent research has further shown that most medical errors stem from system process defects rather than a lack of individual ability. The "Swiss Cheese Model" proposed by James Reason reveals the mechanism of error occurrence from a system engineering perspective, highlighting the cumulative effect of multi-layer defense failures. This theory has driven the paradigm shift of patient safety from "attributing to individuals" to "optimizing systems" [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R2">2</xref>]. However, traditional medical education has long adopted a "siloed" cultivation model, where students from different professions lack early collaborative training, which is considered one of the important roots affecting clinical team communication efficiency and patient safety [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R3">3</xref>].</p>
<title>1.2. Interprofessional Education: Concept and Development</title><p>Interprofessional education (IPE) is defined as "occasions when members or students of two or more professions learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care" [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R4">4</xref>]. The World Health Organization (WHO) explicitly stated in the 2010 Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice that IPE is a key strategy for building efficient healthcare teams [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R3">3</xref>]. Studies have shown that IPE can improve the quality of communication among healthcare personnel, enhance team trust, and reduce the risk of medical errors to a certain extent [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R5">5</xref>].</p>
<title>1.3. The Internal Relationship Between IPE and Patient Safety</title><p>Patient safety essentially depends on interprofessional collaboration. Whether it is medication management, perioperative communication, or critical value reporting, all involve information interaction between multiple professions. Communication failures have been proven to be one of the primary causes of adverse events [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R6">6</xref>]. IPE directly impacts patient safety by enhancing the following core competencies: role recognition and responsibility definition, team communication (such as the SBAR model), and conflict management and decision-making synergy. Therefore, this study systematically analyzes the action mechanism of IPE in patient safety education based on the logical chain of "educational intervention&#x26;#x02014;competency enhancement&#x26;#x02014;behavioral change&#x26;#x02014;patient outcomes."</p>
<title>1.4. Limitations of Previous Reviews and the Innovation of This Study</title><p>Previous systematic reviews have mostly focused on the impact of IPE on learning attitudes, while lacking in-depth analysis of how it transforms into actual clinical behavior. For example, the Cochrane review by Scott Reeves et al. pointed out that evidence for IPE's impact on clinical outcomes remains limited [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R7">7</xref>]. The innovation of this study lies in: focusing on the vertical field of "patient safety," emphasizing the "clinical practical training" context, and constructing an integrated IPE-PS analysis framework.</p>
</sec><sec id="sec2">
<title>Research Methods</title><title>2.1. Search Strategy</title><p>This study follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R8">8</xref>]. The following databases were systematically searched: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, CNKI, and Wanfang. The search time range was from January 2010 to December 2025. Example of English search strategy: ("interprofessional education" OR "IPE") AND ("patient safety" OR "medical error" OR "safety culture").</p>
<title>2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria</title><p>Inclusion criteria: P: Medical and related professional students or healthcare personnel. I: IPE intervention (participation of &#x26;#x02265;2 professions). C: Routine teaching or no control. O: Patient safety-related outcomes. S: RCT, quasi-experimental, or mixed-methods studies. Exclusion criteria: Single-profession studies. No patient safety content. Editorials or full text unavailable.</p>
<title>2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Appraisal</title><p>Two researchers independently screened and extracted the data. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R9">9</xref>]. Educational effects were stratified according to the revised Kirkpatrick model: Level 1: Reaction, Level 2: Learning, Level 3: Behavior, Level 4: Results.</p>
</sec><sec id="sec3">
<title>Results</title><title>3.1. Research Overview</title><p>Through a systematic review of the included studies, it can be found that the development of interprofessional education in the field of patient safety (IPE-PS) presents obvious stage-wise evolutionary characteristics. Since 2010, the number of relevant studies has continued to grow, a trend that became particularly significant after 2020, likely related to the sharp increase in the demand for interprofessional collaboration capabilities against the backdrop of global public health events [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R10">10</xref>].</p>
<p>Regarding geographical distribution, existing research is mainly concentrated in developed countries in Europe and America, especially the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These countries have a significant first-mover advantage in the construction of IPE curriculum systems due to the early inclusion of interprofessional collaboration in medical education certification standards (such as the ACGME and CanMEDS frameworks) [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R11">11</xref>]. In contrast, research in developing countries like China started later. Although the number of publications has grown rapidly in recent years, they are still mainly focused on the field of nursing education, and research on deep multi-disciplinary integration is still in the exploratory stage.</p>
<p>In terms of research design, quantitative research dominates, with quasi-experimental designs (one-group pre- and post-test) being the most common, while the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is relatively low, which is related to the ethical and operational complexity of educational intervention research [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R4">4</xref>]. In recent years, mixed-methods studies have gradually increased; by integrating quantitative results with qualitative interviews, they can more deeply reveal the experience and cognitive transformation process of learners during interprofessional interactions [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R12">12</xref>].</p>
<title>3.2. Theoretical Basis: Mechanisms of Action for IPE-PS Courses</title><p>The effectiveness of IPE-PS courses is established on the cross-support of various educational and sociological theories. Shared Mental Models are considered the core mechanism for promoting efficient team collaboration, emphasizing that through joint training, team members form a consistent perception of task understanding, role division, and risk prediction, thereby achieving efficient synergy in complex clinical situations [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R13">13</xref>]. Additionally, Situated Learning Theory points out that knowledge acquisition depends on real or high-fidelity practical situations. By placing learners in simulated or real clinical environments, IPE can promote the gradual internalization of patient safety norms through the process of "legitimate peripheral participation" [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R14">14</xref>]. Social Capital Theory explains the mechanism of IPE from the perspective of relationship networks. Through interprofessional interaction, learners can establish trust and collaboration networks, thereby reducing communication costs and improving team performance [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R15">15</xref>]. Meanwhile, Transformative Learning Theory emphasizes that through reflection and critical dialogue, learners can break through the cognitive limitations of their original professional identity and reconstruct their understanding of other professions, a process that is significant for breaking down stereotypes in the medical hierarchical structure [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R16">16</xref>].</p>
<title>3.3. Curriculum Models: From Simulation to Clinical Practice</title><p>Current IPE-PS teaching models show a diversified development trend, mainly including high-fidelity simulation (HFS), Team-Based Learning (TBL), case-based workshops, clinical embedded teaching, and online/hybrid teaching. High-fidelity simulation is considered one of the teaching strategies with the most sufficient evidence; by constructing highly realistic clinical crisis scenarios (such as postoperative shock, acute allergic reactions, etc.), it significantly enhances learners' team communication skills and crisis resource management capabilities [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R17">17</xref>]. Especially in the training of the SBAR communication model, simulation teaching shows good consistency in effects. Team-Based Learning (TBL) and case-based workshops are widely used in patient safety knowledge teaching (such as medication safety and root cause analysis) due to their low cost and ease of promotion. Studies indicate that these teaching methods can significantly improve learners' systems thinking and problem-solving abilities [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R18">18</xref>]. Clinical embedded IPE is considered a key path to achieving "transformation from knowledge to behavior." By conducting interprofessional rounds and case discussions in a real clinical environment, learners can directly participate in complex medical decision-making processes, thereby enhancing their actual collaborative abilities [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R19">19</xref>]. Furthermore, online and hybrid IPE developed rapidly in the post-pandemic era, significantly enhancing educational accessibility and flexibility. However, existing research points out that this model still has certain limitations in non-verbal communication and team emotional connection [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R20">20</xref>].</p>
<title>3.4. Evaluation System and Implementation Challenges</title><p>IPE teaching effects are typically evaluated based on the revised Kirkpatrick model, including reaction (Level 1), knowledge and attitudes (Level 2), behavioral change (Level 3), and patient outcomes (Level 4). Currently, most studies are concentrated at Levels 1&#x26;#x02013;2. Commonly used tools include the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), which have good reliability and validity in assessing changes in learner attitudes [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R21">21</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R22">22</xref>]. However, there is still a significant evidence gap in the transformation from attitude improvement to behavioral change. Few existing studies have been able to directly prove the impact of IPE interventions on clinical behavior (such as communication quality, error reporting) or patient outcomes (such as the incidence of adverse events) [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R4">4</xref>]. At the implementation level, the promotion of IPE faces multiple structural barriers. First, inconsistent scheduling across different professional curricula makes it difficult to conduct interprofessional courses regularly. Second, faculty members with interprofessional teaching capabilities are relatively scarce. Additionally, the traditional hierarchical culture within the medical system still restricts the implementation of equal collaboration concepts to a certain extent [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R23">23</xref>].</p>
<title>3.5. Current Status and Reflection of Domestic Research</title><p>China's IPE-PS research is in a critical stage of transition from a single profession to multi-disciplinary integration. Existing research mostly adopts small-sample quasi-experimental designs, primarily focusing on the short-term impact of teaching interventions on learning attitudes, with insufficient evidence regarding long-term behavioral transformation and clinical outcomes. In terms of teaching models, domestic research is mainly concentrated on TBL and case-based teaching, and the systematic exploration of high-fidelity simulation and clinical embedded IPE is still relatively limited, which restricts the in-depth expansion of teaching effects. Furthermore, current domestic research lacks breadth in the participation of professions; key professions such as pharmacy, rehabilitation medicine, and medical laboratory science have low participation rates, making it difficult to fully reflect the real clinical collaboration ecology. Notably, existing evaluation tools are mostly translated versions of foreign scales (such as RIPLS, SAQ). Although preliminary reliability and validity testing has been conducted, there are still limitations in cultural adaptability, and there is a lack of localized evaluation tools developed based on the characteristics of the Chinese healthcare system [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R22">22</xref>]. Therefore, future research needs to be further deepened in theoretical construction, multi-professional integration, and localized tool development to enhance the international influence and practical transformation value of China's IPE-PS research.</p>
</sec><sec id="sec4">
<title>Discussion</title><title>4.1. Summary of Main Findings</title><p>This review systematically identified five core teaching models (HFS, TBL, case-based workshops, clinical embedded teaching, and online learning) in the current IPE-PS field, summarized key theoretical foundations such as Shared Mental Models and situated learning, and further integrated an evaluation system covering the dimensions of attitude, knowledge, and behavior. The results indicate that existing evidence consistently supports the significant effect of IPE in improving learners' interprofessional collaboration attitudes and enhancing patient safety awareness (Kirkpatrick Level 1&#x26;#x02013;2) [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R10">10</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R11">11</xref>]. However, this positive impact shows a significant decay when transforming to higher levels, meaning that evidence at the levels of behavioral change (Level 3) and patient outcomes (Level 4) remains limited. This phenomenon is consistent with previous systematic review results, suggesting a "translation gap" still exists between educational intervention and clinical practice [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R4">4</xref>]. From an educational mechanism perspective, this break may stem from the ecological difference between the learning context and the real clinical environment. Although high-fidelity simulation can effectively improve skill mastery, its role in promoting behavior migration in real complex systems remains limited [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R17">17</xref>]. Therefore, how to achieve an effective transition from "simulated competency" to "clinical competency" has become a key issue in current IPE-PS research.</p>
<title>4.2. Dialogue with Previous Reviews</title><p>This study has conducted important expansions based on existing evidence. Compared with the review by Aamir H. Guraya et al. (2018) on the overall effects of IPE [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R24">24</xref>], this study included the latest evidence on virtual simulation and remote collaboration teaching from the past five years, revealing the evolution trend of IPE teaching models in the context of digital transformation. Meanwhile, the results of this study are highly consistent with the interprofessional education action framework proposed by the World Health Organization, further validating its theoretical hypothesis that "collaborative learning promotes health outcomes" [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R4">4</xref>]. Unlike the Cochrane review by Scott Reeves et al. (2017), which mainly focused on the macro impact of IPE on clinical outcomes [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R4">4</xref>], this study further refined the micro-level implementation path of IPE in teaching by focusing on the specific vertical field of "patient safety," particularly emphasizing the key role of clinical practical training in competency transformation. This "macro to micro" analytical path helps to compensate for the deficiencies in teaching design found in previous studies.</p>
<title>4.3. Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications</title><p>At the theoretical level, this study proposes an "IPE-PS integration framework," emphasizing interprofessional education as a "strategy" for enhancing patient safety competency, while treating patient safety outcomes as the "goal (outcome)" of IPE effectiveness evaluation. This framework breaks through the previous limitation of separate analysis of teaching methods and clinical results, helping to construct a more systematic medical education research paradigm. Additionally, this study identifies a key "black box" in current IPE research&#x26;#x02014;namely, the psychological and social mechanisms from educational intervention to competency internalization remain unclear. Existing research indicates that the formation of interprofessional identity and the establishment of team trust play a mediating role in behavioral transformation, but the relevant mechanisms still lack systematic validation [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R25">25</xref>]. At the practical level, this study offers the following suggestions: Curriculum design level: It is recommended to adopt a "spiral curriculum structure," introducing IPE modules progressively at different stages of training to promote the continuous reinforcement and migration of abilities. Institutional level: Educational managers should break down administrative barriers between disciplines through credit integration and collaborative course design, a point validated by various international experiences [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R11">11</xref>]. Clinical teaching level: Embedding IPE evaluation into daily clinical practice [such as rounds and case discussions] helps achieve the deep integration of teaching and medical services, thereby promoting actual behavioral change [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R26">26</xref>].</p>
<title>4.4. Research Limitations</title><p>This review has several limitations. First, the literature search was limited to Chinese and English databases, potentially omitting important research or grey literature from non-English speaking countries. Second, due to the tendency for positive results to be more easily published in medical education research, this study may be subject to publication bias. Furthermore, the included studies exhibit significant heterogeneity in terms of intervention form, duration, participating professions, and evaluation indicators, which limits the feasibility of conducting a meta-analysis. Similar issues have also been reported in related Cochrane Collaboration reviews. Finally, most studies lack long-term follow-up data, leaving the assessment of the long-term effects of IPE interventions with uncertainty, which is a common methodological challenge in the current field.</p>
<title>4.5. Future Research Directions</title><p>Based on the findings of this review, future IPE-PS research can proceed in the following areas: (1) Mechanism level: Adopt qualitative methods such as phenomenology or grounded theory to deeply explore the cognitive reconstruction process of learners during interprofessional interactions, thereby revealing the internal mechanism of how IPE affects patient safety behavior [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R27">27</xref>]. (2) Longitudinal studies: Conduct long-term follow-up studies from medical school education to the clinical practice stage to assess the sustained impact of IPE interventions on actual clinical behavior [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R28">28</xref>]. (3) Endpoint indicators: Design complex intervention studies to explore the direct impact of IPE on patient outcomes (such as error rates and readmission rates) to respond to the current problem of insufficient evidence [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R29">29</xref>]. (4) Evaluation tools: Develop a multi-dimensional evaluation system that possesses reliability, validity, and clinical applicability, particularly strengthening the use of objective behavioral observation and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). (5) Localized research: Within the context of the Chinese healthcare system, explore IPE implementation paths that adapt to the characteristics of hierarchical structures and resource distribution, enhancing the context-suitability and international influence of the research. (6) Technical fusion: Combine virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence technologies to construct high-risk collaborative training environments to improve teaching efficiency and reduce costs [
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="R30">30</xref>]. (7) Faculty development: Systematically construct an interprofessional education faculty training system to enhance teachers' comprehensive abilities in team guidance, situational simulation, and feedback evaluation, which is considered one of the key guarantee factors for the successful implementation of IPE (19).</p>
</sec><sec id="sec5">
<title>Conclusion</title><p>The deep integration of interprofessional education and patient safety education is the core path to addressing the complexity of modern medical systems and cultivating collaborative, practice-oriented talents. This review confirms that diversified curriculum models such as high-fidelity simulation and team-based learning can significantly optimize students' readiness for collaboration and safety culture awareness, but there remains an evidence gap in the attribution analysis of behavioral transformation and clinical endpoint indicators. Current research is still hindered by realistic challenges such as discipline institutional barriers, limited evaluation methods, and vague theoretical transformation mechanisms. Future efforts should be dedicated to constructing a longitudinal, empirical research system, developing multi-dimensional evaluation tools that fit the local context, and promoting the transition of interprofessional education from fragmented pilot programs to a standardized medical training system through policy guidance.</p>
</sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      
<ref id="R1">
<label>[1]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in A. In: Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2000.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R2">
<label>[2]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Reason J. James Reason: patient safety, human error, and Swiss cheese. Interview by Karolina Peltomaa and Duncan Neuhauser. Quality management in health care. 2012;21(1):59-63.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R3">
<label>[3]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Gilbert JH, Yan J, Hoffman SJ. A WHO report: framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Journal of allied health. 2010;39 Suppl 1:196-7.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R4">
<label>[4]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Reeves S, Perrier L, Goldman J, Freeth D, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update). The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;2013(3):Cd002213.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R5">
<label>[5]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Duff JP, Morse KJ, Seelandt J, Gross IT, Lydston M, Sargeant J, et al. Debriefing Methods for Simulation in Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Simulation in healthcare: journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare. 2024;19(1s):S112-s21.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R6">
<label>[6]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Douglas RN, Stephens LS, Posner KL, Davies JM, Mincer SL, Burden AR, et al. Communication failures contributing to patient injury in anaesthesia malpractice claims&#x02606;. British journal of anaesthesia. 2021;127(3):470-8.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R7">
<label>[7]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Wei H, Horns P, Sears SF, Huang K, Smith CM, Wei TL. A systematic meta-review of systematic reviews about interprofessional collaboration: facilitators, barriers, and outcomes. Journal of interprofessional care. 2022;36(5):735-49.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R8">
<label>[8]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2021;372:n71.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R9">
<label>[9]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. The American journal of nursing. 2014;114(3):53-8.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R10">
<label>[10]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Huber C. [Interprofessional Collaboration in Health Care]. Praxis. 2022;110(1):3-4.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R11">
<label>[11]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet (London, England). 2010;376(9756):1923-58.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R12">
<label>[12]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health services research. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2134-56.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R13">
<label>[13]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of general internal medicine. 2012;27(10):1361-7.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R14">
<label>[14]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">O'Brien BC, Battista A. Situated learning theory in health professions education research: a scoping review. Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice. 2020;25(2):483-509.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R15">
<label>[15]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Samuel LJ, Commodore-Mensah Y, Himmelfarb CR. Developing Behavioral Theory With the Systematic Integration of Community Social Capital Concepts. Health education &#x00026; behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education. 2014;41(4):359-75.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R16">
<label>[16]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Van Schalkwyk SC, Hafler J, Brewer TF, Maley MA, Margolis C, McNamee L, et al. Transformative learning as pedagogy for the health professions: a scoping review. Medical education. 2019;53(6):547-58.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R17">
<label>[17]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Kim J, Park JH, Shin S. Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:152.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R18">
<label>[18]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Roossien L, van Klaveren LM, de Vos R, Dolmans D, Boerboom TBB. Team-based learning (TBL) in health professions education: A systematic review on its conceptual elements and outcomes. Medical teacher. 2025;47(12):1933-47.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R19">
<label>[19]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Flood B, Smythe L, Hocking C, Jones M. Interprofessional practice: beyond competence. Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice. 2019;24(3):489-501.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R20">
<label>[20]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Evans SM, Ward C, Reeves S. Online interprofessional education facilitation: A scoping review. Medical teacher. 2019;41(2):215-22.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R21">
<label>[21]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Mahler C, Berger S, Reeves S. The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS): A problematic evaluative scale for the interprofessional field. Journal of interprofessional care. 2015;29(4):289-91.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R22">
<label>[22]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Olesen AE, Juhl MH, Deilk&#x000e5;s ET, Kristensen S. Review: application of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) in primary care - a systematic synthesis on validity, descriptive and comparative results, and variance across organisational units. BMC primary care. 2024;25(1):37.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R23">
<label>[23]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">D'Amour D, Oandasan I. Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: an emerging concept. Journal of interprofessional care. 2005;19 Suppl 1:8-20.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R24">
<label>[24]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sundberg K, Reeves S, Josephson A, Nordquist J. Framing IPE. Exploring meanings of interprofessional education within an academic health professions institution. Journal of interprofessional care. 2019;33(6):628-35.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R25">
<label>[25]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Reinders JJ, Krijnen W. Interprofessional identity and motivation towards interprofessional collaboration. Medical education. 2023;57(11):1068-78.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R26">
<label>[26]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Golom FD, Schreck JS. The Journey to Interprofessional Collaborative Practice: Are We There Yet? Pediatric clinics of North America. 2018;65(1):1-12.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R27">
<label>[27]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Best S, Williams S. Professional identity in interprofessional teams: findings from a scoping review. Journal of interprofessional care. 2019;33(2):170-81.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R28">
<label>[28]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Jiang Y, Cai Y, Zhang X, Wang C. Interprofessional education interventions for healthcare professionals to improve patient safety: a scoping review. Medical education online. 2024;29(1):2391631.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R29">
<label>[29]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2000;321(7262):694-6.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="R30">
<label>[30]</label>
<mixed-citation publication-type="other">Junga A, Schulze H, Scherzer S, H&#x000e4;tscher O, Bozdere P, Schmidle P, et al. Immersive learning in medical education: analyzing behavioral insights to shape the future of VR-based courses. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1413.
</mixed-citation>
</ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>