0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patient-centered interprofessional education in cancer care: a systematic scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Cancer remains a critical global health issue requiring a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach for effective treatment. Interprofessional education (IPE) is essential for overcoming barriers to collaboration among healthcare professionals and fostering efficient teamwork in cancer care.

          Objective

          This systematic scoping review aims to explore the role of IPE in enhancing interprofessional collaboration within cancer care by mapping and synthesizing the implementation, impact, and evaluation strategies of patient-centered IPE programs in this field.

          Methods

          A comprehensive search was conducted across seven databases, including CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science, from their inception to January 2024. Grey literature was also sought through online sources and by contacting relevant organizations. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively following a standardized protocol.

          Results

          Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting various educational methods such as web-based platforms, face-to-face interactions, experiential learning, and simulation-based training. Patient-centered IPE programs notably improved interprofessional collaboration, communication, knowledge, and self-confidence among healthcare professionals. Additionally, several programs led to concrete changes in clinical practice and institutional policies. Evaluation strategies primarily utilized established frameworks such as Kirkpatrick’s model and Moore’s outcome levels to assess multiple layers of outcomes, including participant satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, competence, and behavior change.

          Conclusions

          The findings indicate that patient-centered IPE programs effectively promote interprofessional collaboration and enhance clinical competencies in cancer care. Future research should focus on long-term evaluations, address systemic barriers, expand geographical scope, and utilize standardized evaluation frameworks to further improve the design and implementation of patient-centered IPE programs in cancer care.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-024-06600-x.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

            Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                honja.hama@meduniwien.ac.at
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                30 December 2024
                30 December 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 1552
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, ( https://ror.org/05n3x4p02) Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]Open Innovation in Science Center, Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft, ( https://ror.org/01v1jam04) Vienna, Austria
                [3 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, ( https://ror.org/05n3x4p02) Vienna, Austria
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1373-5279
                http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4873-5118
                http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5588-7852
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5571-2780
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-1467
                Article
                6600
                10.1186/s12909-024-06600-x
                11684053
                39736712
                36030a63-ddd1-485b-8dc0-8405bb04525a
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 October 2024
                : 23 December 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: European Union under the EU4Health program 2021-2027
                Award ID: 101129375
                Award ID: 101129375
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Education
                cancer care,oncology,interprofessional,interdisciplinary,continuing education,postgraduate education,program evaluation,medical education,patient-centered care

                Comments

                Comment on this article