Sustainability of Interprofessional Education: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Interprofessional education (IPE) is an approach that can improve health care quality, contribute to the qualification of health care professionals, and train undergraduate students. Although this strategy has made significant progress in the last decade, integration, sustainability, and institutional growth are still priorities worldwide. Thus, maintaining strategies is essential for their full development and evolution.
This study aimed to identify discussions about the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both).
The scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. This scoping review protocol follows the JBI Reviewers' Manual, with 6 stages: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; data extraction and coding; analysis and interpretation of results; and consultation with stakeholders. Two independent and blind reviewers will evaluate and select studies available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish based on the eligibility criteria. Searches will be conducted on LILACS, Embase, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. The main research question is as follows: What have been the sustainability strategies for IPE actions? This scoping review will incorporate studies (empirical or theoretical-reflective) that address strategies or actions (or both) for IPE sustainability. They must present a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach and be available in full text. Data on strategies or actions for IPE sustainability will be extracted and inserted into a spreadsheet for analysis. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative analysis will identify meanings and patterns through thematic analysis. Thus, the aim is to present the compiled findings in tables and charts.
The database search was conducted on March 22, 2024. In April and May 2024, duplicate studies were excluded. From July to November 2024, study selection will be carried out. In December 2024, data extraction and tabulation will take place, as well as consultation with stakeholders. The aim is to publish the results in scientific journals in January 2025.
This protocol will guide this scoping review to identify discussions on the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both); summarize the definitions and institutions that develop or promote IPE; and present the main recommendations for the area under study. Additionally, possible research gaps can be identified to guide future studies. This review will shed light on existing knowledge gaps and the current state of research, which could provide support for future research, programs, and policy responses to foster collaboration and interprofessional practice and, consequently, improve the quality of user care. This information will be useful in supporting decision-making by government officials, managers, teachers, facilitators, and students in the implementation, maintenance, and development of IPE.
Open Science Framework 5VNJS; https://osf.io/5vnjs/.
DERR1-10.2196/60763.
Oliveira NHS
，Oliveira RFS
，Soares JP
，Castro JL
... -
《JMIR Research Protocols》
Ethics of Procuring and Using Organs or Tissue from Infants and Newborns for Transplantation, Research, or Commercial Purposes: Protocol for a Bioethics Scoping Review.
Since the inception of transplantation, it has been crucial to ensure that organ or tissue donations are made with valid informed consent to avoid concerns about coercion or exploitation. This issue is particularly challenging when it comes to infants and younger children, insofar as they are unable to provide consent. Despite their vulnerability, infants' organs and tissues are considered valuable for biomedical purposes due to their size and unique properties. This raises questions about the conditions under which it is permissible to remove and use these body parts for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes. The aim of this protocol is to establish a foundation for a scoping review that will identify, clarify, and categorise the main ethical arguments regarding the permissibility of removing and using organs or tissues from infants. The scoping review will follow the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), consisting of five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) developing the search strategy, (3) setting inclusion criteria, (4) extracting data, and (5) presenting and analysing the results. We will include both published and unpublished materials that explicitly discuss the ethical arguments related to the procurement and use of infant organs or tissues in the biomedical context. The search will cover various databases, including the National Library of Medicine, Web of Science, EBSCO, and others, as well as grey literature sources. Two raters will independently assess the eligibility of articles, and data from eligible studies will be extracted using a standardised form. The extracted data will then be analysed descriptively through qualitative content analysis.
There has been debate about how to respect the rights and interests of organ and tissue donors since the beginning of transplantation practice, given the moral risks involved in procuring parts of their bodies and using them for transplantation or research. A major concern has been to ensure that, at a minimum, donation of organs or other bodily tissues for transplantation or research is done under conditions of valid informed consent, so as to avoid coercion or exploitation among other moral harms. In the case of infants and younger children, however, this concern poses special difficulties insofar as infants and younger children are deemed incapable of providing valid consent. Due to their diminutive size and other distinctive properties, infants' organs and tissues are seen as valuable for biomedical purposes. Yet, the heightened vulnerability of infants raises questions about when and whether it is ever permissible to remove these body parts or use them in research or for other purposes. The aim of this protocol is to form the basis of a systematic scoping review to identify, clarify, and systematise the main ethical arguments for and against the permissibility of removing and using infant or newborn (hereafter, "infant") organs or tissues in the biomedical context (i.e. for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes).
Our scoping review will broadly follow the well-established methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute ( Peters et al., 2020). We will follow a five-stage review process: (1) identification of the research question, (2) development of the search strategy, (3) inclusion criteria, (4) data extraction, and (5) presentation and analysis of the results. Published and unpublished bibliographic material (including reports, dissertations, book chapters, etc.) will be considered based on the following inclusion criteria: the presence of explicit (bio)ethical arguments or reasons (concept) for or against the procurement and use of organs or tissues from infants, defined as a child from birth until 1 year old (population), in the biomedical domain, including transplantation, research, and commercial development (context). We will search for relevant studies in the National Library of Medicine (including PubMed and MEDLINE), Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Google Scholar, PhilPapers, The Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), EthxWeb as well as grey literature sources (e.g., Google, BASE, OpenGrey, and WorldCat) and the reference lists of key studies to identify studies suitable for inclusion. A three-stage search strategy will be used to determine the eligibility of articles, as recommended by the JBI methodological guidelines. We will exclude sources if (a) the full text is not accessible, (b) the main text is in a language other than English, or (c) the focus is exclusively on scientific, legal, or religious/theological arguments. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility between two raters (MB & XL); data from eligible articles will be extracted and charted using a standardised data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively using basic qualitative content analysis.
Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publicly available sources. Our dissemination strategy includes peer review publication, presentation at conferences, and outreach to relevant stakeholders.
The results will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. An overview of the general data from the included studies will be presented in the form of graphs or tables showing the distribution of studies by year or period of publication, country of origin, and key ethical arguments. These results will be accompanied by a narrative summary describing how each included study or article relates to the aims of this review. Research gaps will be identified and limitations of the review will also be highlighted.
A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, a synthesis of the key findings will be disseminated to biomedical settings (e.g., conferences or workshops, potentially including ones linked to university hospitals) in the UK, USA, Türkiye, and Singapore. They will also be shared with the academic community and policy makers involved in the organ procurement organisations (OPO), which will potentially consider our recommendations in their decision-making processes regarding infant tissue/organ donation practice in these countries.
The use of a rigorous, well-established methodological framework will ensure the production of a high-quality scoping review that will contribute to the bioethics literature.A comprehensive search of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary databases will be undertaken to ensure coverage of all possible sources that meet the inclusion criteria for the review.This review will focus exclusively on infant tissue/organ procurement/use in biomedical contexts, providing a comprehensive and reliable source of ethical arguments for future debates on this sensitive topic.The review will be limited to articles published in English, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources published in other languages.The review will be limited to articles for which the full text is available, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources that otherwise may have been included in the scoping review had the full text been accessible.
Barış M
，Lim X
，T Almonte M
，Shaw D
，Brierley J
，Porsdam Mann S
，Nguyen T
，Menikoff J
，Wilkinson D
，Savulescu J
，Earp BD
... -
《-》
Effects of Interprofessional Education on Readiness for Interprofessional Learning in Rehabilitation Science Students From Professional Health Care Programs: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
The World Health Organization defines interprofessional education (IPE) as a process in which students from different health care programs work together to provide effective care while deepening their knowledge of each other's roles. Previous literature shows a strong argument for early exposure to IPE as a facilitator for high quality patient care. The goal of IPE is to improve interprofessional collaboration (IPC), the "gold standard" of care to enhance patients' quality of life, functional ability, and health status, especially for patients who require expertise from a variety of health care professionals. IPC has shown improvements in quality of life, functional ability, and health status. IPE can occur in the form of structured interventions or spontaneously in student placements. Literature has demonstrated that IPE facilitates skill, knowledge development, teamwork, communication skills, and mutual respect among health care professional students.
This systematic review aims to examine IPE outcomes, including readiness for IPC, IPE perceptions, attitudes toward collaborative learning, student confidence, practice efficiency, and team dynamics after IPE interventions in rehabilitation science students.
The study will be conducted as outlined by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and will be reported per the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2015 guidelines. Students have performed literature searches across the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science, and AMED. Studies will be included if their IPE intervention included multiple prelicensure health care professional students in a health care or health care education setting. Based on timelines presented in the Institute of Medicine's report on the impacts of IPE, relevant studies from 2016 to the present will be included. The Risk of Bias 2 tool will be used to study sources of bias. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) working group's methods will be used to evaluate the quality of the evidence presented. The final 3 authors are assisting as supervisors, providing oversight and feedback as needed. Any deviations from this protocol will be reported in the final paper.
The search strategy was finalized and searched across the databases by March 8, 2024. The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on March 31, 2024. A total of 10,692 citations were retrieved for abstract and title screening, beginning in March 2024, and 756 were eligible for full-text screening in April 2024. Six articles were considered for inclusion and data extraction, which began in July 2024. Finalization of the extracted data and paper will occur in September 2024.
This systematic review will provide a summary of the effects of IPE interventions in prelicensure rehabilitation science students. It will provide educators, health care providers, and students with valuable information for understanding the relevance of IPE. It will also shed light on research gaps and highlight areas for further study.
PROSPERO CRD42024506081; https://tinyurl.com/3tf2h9er.
PRR1-10.2196/60830.
Dixon E
，Pannu J
，Dhaliwal K
，Cheng R
，Deol G
，Frangos S
，Tawil E
，Oliveira A
，Wojkowski S
，Quach S
... -
《JMIR Research Protocols》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
