Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Educación interprofesional: efectos en la práctica profesional y en los resultados de la atención sanitaria

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 28 marzo 2013see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Práctica y organización sanitaria efectivas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Scott Reevesa

    London, UK

    Deceased

  • Laure Perrier

    Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada

  • Joanne Goldman

    Centre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

  • Della Freeth

    Centre for Medical Education, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

  • Merrick Zwarenstein

    Correspondencia a: Department of Family Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

SR, LP and JG searched and reviewed the literature and extracted data with input from MZ. SR interpreted the data and wrote the main draft of the review with input from LP, JG, DF and MZ. MZ Is guarantor for the review.

Scott Reeves (SR); Author deceased May 2018. His contributions to the published review are listed above.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Center for Innovation in Interprofessional Education, University of California, San Francisco, USA.

  • Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Canada.

  • Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada.

  • Institute of Health Sciences Education, Queen Mary University London, UK.

  • Institute for Clinical Effectiveness, Toronto, Canada.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None known. Scott Reeves; (deceased May 2018), This declaration was provided before the author died.

Acknowledgements

Amber Fitzsimmons, doctoral student at University of California, San Francisco, for her help with preliminary abstraction notes of some of the included studies.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2013 Mar 28

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Review

Scott Reeves, Laure Perrier, Joanne Goldman, Della Freeth, Merrick Zwarenstein

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub3

2008 Jan 23

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

Review

Scott Reeves, Merrick Zwarenstein, Joanne Goldman, Hugh Barr, Della Freeth, Marilyn Hammick, Ivan Koppel

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub2

2000 Jul 24

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

Review

Merrick Zwarenstein, Scott Reeves, Hugh Barr, Marilyn Hammick, Ivan Koppel, Jo Atkins

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002213

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Flow diagram.(*Total refers to sum of 1999 review and updates in 2008 and 2012).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow diagram.

(*Total refers to sum of 1999 review and updates in 2008 and 2012).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

original image
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2
Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

original image
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3
Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Interprofessional education to improve professional practices

Patient or population: professionals or patients involved in interprofessional education intervention

Settings: primarily USA and the UK

Intervention: use of interprofessional education to improve collaboration and patient care

Comparison: separate, profession‐specific education interventions; or no education intervention

Outcomes

Impacts

No of studies

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)*

Patient outcomes

The care provided by use of interprofessional education may lead to improved outcomes for patients

6

⊕⊕⊖⊖

Low

Adherence rates

The use of interprofessional education may lead to changes in the use of guidelines or standards (e.g. adherence to clinical guidelines) among different professions

3

⊕⊕⊖⊖

Low

Patient satisfaction

Patients may be more satisfied with care provided by professionals who have participated in an interprofessional education intervention

2

⊕⊕⊖⊖

Low

Clinical process outcomes

Changes in clinical processes (e.g. shared decisions on surgical incisions) may be linked to the use of interprofessional education

1

⊕⊕⊖⊖

Low

Collaborative behaviour

We are unable to assess adequately the extent to which different professions behave collaboratively in the delivery of care to patients

3

⊕⊖⊖⊖

Very low

Error rates

We are unable to assess adequately the reduction of error due to improved interprofessional education

1

⊕⊖⊖⊖

Very low

Practitioner competencies

We are unable to assess adequately the competencies (e.g. skills, knowledge) of professionals to work together in the delivery of care

1

⊕⊖⊖⊖

Very low

*GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figuras y tablas -
Ir a la tabla de la revisión