Search results

Interprofessional education (IPE) has been highly promoted as a means of enhancing interprofessional practice and thereby having a positive impact on healthcare systems and patient outcomes. Various documents mention that sufficient evidence has been accumulated to demonstrate the effectiveness of IPE, yet it is not completely clear what type of evidence is being alluded to. The objective of this review was to gather evidence about IPE programs that resulted in effective long-term outcomes in healthcare. Secondary outcomes included identification of the types of models that met the success criteria, barriers and facilitators of such successful programs if any.

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus. The review considered studies that targeted undergraduate and postgraduate students among more than one health profession and included those in the English language published between 2010 and end of 2020.

Five studies have been identified and described in this review. These papers evaluated different IPE programs and models.

1. This systematic review investigated the evidence of the existence of IPE programs and the findings show there is no robust specific evidence of long-term impact on healthcare and on patients' outcomes. 2. The conclusion from this review is that it is still unclear what format constitutes a successful and efficient program. 3. Appropriate longitudinal studies need to be designed to identify the impact of IPE on long-term health outcomes.

Overall, the studies show that although there is an emphasis on practice-based learning, there is no robust specific evidence of long-term impact on healthcare and on patients' outcomes. Appropriate longitudinal studies need to be designed to identify the impact of IPE on long-term health outcomes.

In this phenomenological study, the experiences of seven Black women faculty at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) who are working toward tenure and promotion are presented. The use of phenomenology, specifically in-depth interviews, gives voice to the women as they share the essence of their experiences including their perceived supports and barriers. Understanding their experiences adds to the literature on women of color in education and has the implications for schooling and community, and support structures essential to the success of Black women and all women of color in academe.

On 24 January 2020, France informed WHO of three cases of novel coronavirus, all of whom had travelled from Wuhan, China. These three cases were the first confirmed cases in Europe. By 13 March 2020, Europe had become the epicentre of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of the world combined, apart from the People’s Republic of China. Many European countries like Italy, France and Germany took drastic actions and subsequently announced a lockdown, while other countries like the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden were much more hesitant to introduce such far-reaching safety measures. This chapter provides a literature overview of how the variation in such measures in Europe has ultimately resulted in changes in daily activities and travel behaviour during the pandemic. It focusses on five main themes: (i) reduction in mobility and activities, (ii) spatial-temporal adjustments in out-of-home activities in which people still participated, (iii) modal adjustments especially among people who used to travel by public transport before the pandemic, (iv) new out-of-home activities including new outdoor activities and (v) digital adaptations as several out-of-home activities were replaced by digital activities, with special attention to the experience of teleworking.