METHODS: We followed the guidelines suggested by Whetten for constructing a theoretical model for framework development. There were four phases in the model development. In the first phase, different literature review methods were used, and additional students' perspectives were collected through focus group discussions. Then, using the data, we constructed the theoretical model in the second phase. In the third phase, we validated the newly developed model and its related guidelines. Finally, we performed response process validation of the model with a group of medical teachers.
RESULTS: The developed systematic assessment resilience framework (SAR) promotes four constructs: self-control, management, engagement, and growth, through five phases of assessment: assessment experience, assessment direction, assessment preparation, examiner focus, and student reflection. Each phase contains a number of practical guidelines to promote resilience. We rigorously triangulated each approach with its theoretical foundations and evaluated it on the basis of its content and process. The model showed high levels of content and face validity.
CONCLUSIONS: The SAR model offers a novel guideline for fostering resilience through assessment planning and practice. It includes a number of attainable and practical guidelines for enhancing resilience. In addition, it opens a new horizon for HPE students' future use of this framework in the new normal condition (post COVID 19).
METHODS: We conducted mixed focus groups (FGs) with faculty members from medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nutrition and dietetics, nursing, chiropractic, Chinese medicine, and other health sciences programmes; who were involved in the planning of IPE at institutional or programme level, or who participated in IPE activity. Transcripts were analysed using grounded theory.
RESULTS: We identified 25 barriers and facilitators, clustered under five major categories of commitment, faculty engagement, IPE design, support, and delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of IPE may hinge on actions in 5 stages; commitment, faculty engagement, IPE design, support, and delivery. The processes will require consistent leadership to break down professional silos and enhance collaborative effort in IPE implementation.
METHOD: This research is a quasi-experimental design with a pre-post without control research approach. The research population covers all students registered joining OTOF CIPIPEC at Poltekkes Kemenkes Surakarta with a total number of 1061 of students. The samples are collected using a total sampling technique. The samples for this research are those registered joining the OTOF CIPIPEC at Poltekkes Kemenkes Surakarta meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total number of 1031 of students. This research utilizes the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) questionnaires as its measuring instruments. This study was conducted in Mojosongo sub-district, Jebres district, Surakarta. This research involves 38 Community Units (In Indonesia known as Rukun Warga/RW) with a total number of 1066 of family heads and the Sibela Community Health Center. The data are analyzed using the Wilcoxon test and multiple linear regression test.
RESULT OF THE STUDY: The research results showed that there is a significant difference of readiness improvement, teamwork, and perception on other professions and satisfaction of the research subjects before and after joining OTOF-CIPIPEC (ρ<0.001). The average improvement scores of students' readiness, teamwork, perception, and satisfaction are 63.2%, 62.5%, 62.57%, and 113.04% respectively. The results of the multivariate analysis show that teamwork and perception significantly influence the students' readiness in their collaboration with the other professions (ρ<0.001) with the influence value of 0.93%.
CONCLUSION: This research concludes that OTOF-CIPIPEC implementation may improve readiness, teamwork, and perception of other professions and students' satisfaction in interprofessional education (IPE).
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study design was used. Two different scales were used to measure the readiness for and perception of interprofessional learning; these were the 'Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale' and the 'Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale'. A convenience sampling method was employed. The sample was drawn from undergraduate students enrolled in years 1 to 5 of medical, dental, pharmacy and health sciences programme. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 83%. The students mentioned that shared learning with other healthcare professional students will increase their ability to understand clinical problems. The students also mentioned that such shared learning will help them to communicate better with patients and other professionals. The students preferred to work with individuals from their own profession. Participants from medical, dental, pharmacy, and health sciences had a difference in opinion about 'negative professional identity', a domain of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale. Based on the different year of study of the students, 'team work and collaboration', 'negative professional identity' and 'roles and responsibility' were the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale domains where students had a difference in opinion.
CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes and readiness towards interprofessional learning showed significant differences among students of various healthcare professions; these differences also depended on the students' year of study. Interprofessional learning should be incorporated in the curriculum of all healthcare professional programs, which may foster students to become competent healthcare providers and understand each profession's role.
METHOD: A quantitative cross-sectional study design was adopted. Honey and Mumford's Learning Style Questionnaire was used to explore the learning styles.
RESULTS: The reflector learning style was most preferred by the Malaysian healthcare undergraduates, and no significant difference was found between the learning styles of the clinical group and the semi-clinical group.
CONCLUSIONS: Educators should engage Malaysian healthcare undergraduates in a non-threatening environment - Association between learning style and sociodemographic warrants further investigation.
METHODS: Twenty-five final year physiotherapy students were asked to view and interpret the findings of six CXRs, together with a brief vignette, typical of a single commonly encountered diagnosis. Students were also asked if they had received additional CXR training on placement or had a desire to specialize in respiratory care.
RESULTS: The CXR interpretations were scored as incorrect 0, partially correct 1 (abnormality detected but not able to diagnose or missed some detail) and 2 correct. Scores for each of the six CXRs were added to give a total score (out of 12). The median score was 3 out of 12, (range 0-9). Median scores were slightly higher at 4 out of 12 in those students with additional training or a desire to specialize (range 1-7), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.43).
CONCLUSIONS: Final year physiotherapy students were not able to reliably interpret CXRs. These findings were consistent with previous published research involving medical students. Therefore on graduation before starting "on call" duties it is recommended newly qualified physiotherapists receive additional training in CXR interpretation.
METHODS: A sequential mixed method research design was used in this study. A validated questionnaire was distributed to undergraduate students of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy programmes to collect their general views on LA. Focus group interviews with a total of 18 students were conducted to explore their perceptions in depth, followed by thematic analysis of the transcribed data.
RESULTS: Generally, the students were aware of their demographic data, utilisation of learning management system and academic performance data being collected by the university. They were agreeable for collection of those data which had direct association with their learning to be used for LA. However, they expressed concerns about the privacy, confidentiality, and security of the collected data. Three themes emerged from the interviews, i.e., self-regulated learning, evidence-based decision making and data management. The students perceived that LA could help them to monitor achievement of learning outcomes and provide support for individualised learning paths through recommendations of learning resources and learning motivation. They also opined that LA could help educators and institutions by providing feedback on teaching and learning methods, resource allocation and interventions to create conducive learning environment.
CONCLUSIONS: LA is a useful tool to support self-regulated learning, however, precautions should be exercised during implementation to ensure data privacy and security.