2022 Global IPE Situational Analysis Results Final Report
Citation: Khalili, H., Lackie, K., Langlois, S., Wetzlmair, L.C., & Working Group (2022). Global IPE Situational Analysis Result Final Report. InterprofessionalResearch.Global Publication (ISBN: 978-1-7366963-2-3). Available at: www.interprofessionalresearch.global
The Global Network for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research (IPR.Global) is pleased to announce the publication of its 2022 Global IPE Situational Analysis Results Final Report E-Book. This e-book, as an up-to-date global IPE report after the World Health Organization Study Group on IPECP environmental scan in 2010, (Rodger et al., 2010), presents the results of 2020-2021 global IPE situational analysis survey conducted by the IPR.Global in collaboration with the Interprofessional.Global.
More than a decade ago, Rodger et al. (2010) analyzed the global state of interprofessional education (IPE). In a fast-paced world, current evaluations and analyses are warranted to demonstrate developments, changes, and identify areas of required action.
This paper reports on a cross-sectional study investigating micro-, meso-, and macro-level processes that support IPE programs development and implementation globally. This report is an up-to-date global environmental scan of IPE, subsequent to the results from Rodger et al. (2010), which indicated micro, meso, and macro level effects on IPE.
Conducted by the Global Network for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice Research [InterprofessionalResearch.Global (IPR.Global)] and in collaboration with the Interprofessional.Global, the survey included 17 quantitative questions that were analyzed at the global and regional levels. Three open-text questions were thematically analyzed. In total, 152 institutions from six regions worldwide contributed to this study, with regional participation similar to those of the environmental scan conducted by Rodger et al. (2010). The highest response rate came from South America and Mexico, followed by Africa, Europe, USA and Canada, Asia, and Australia.
Among all institutions, only just above half confirmed the presence of established IPE programs, and the regional comparisons revealed the existence of a wide gap among regions in which institutions located in North America (i.e., USA and Canada) on average had the highest levels of established IPE programs, whereas those in Africa had the lowest. The data in this study also revealed that interestingly among all institutions in all regions that currently offer IPE programs, half have a history of doing so for less than 5 years and the other half for over 5 years. While it seems that IPE programs are growing among various regions, in overall about half of institutions around the world still do not have established IPE programming (no/unsure/in progress). According to qualitative responses to the open-text questions, in order to overcome logistical challenges of and foster collaboration for IPE program development and implementation in each institution dedicated IPE space, time, and resources will be required.
The results of this study revealed that, at the global level, about one-third of academic institutions do not have a centralized IPE organizational model. Regionally, South America and Mexico and Africa reported the highest institutions with no formalized structures. The IPE program leadership follows suit with over one-third of respondents, at the global level, indicating that there is no formal IPE director/coordinator/ leadership role in their institutions. Respondents to the open-text responses of this survey indicated that supportive senior leadership, a collaboration culture, and the recognition of IPE as a strategic direction and/or priority at an institutional level could make possible the successful implementation of IPE.
Funding of IPE programs varies considerably worldwide – from having none or no knowledge of funding, to centralized funds provided by programs and/or institutions, to external grants and/or endowments. Although strides are being made globally and regionally
towards funding IPE programs, still over one-third of respondents reported receiving no financial support.
Similar to the Rodger et al. report on 2010, just over one third of the institutions require all students to participate in IPE. Australia and Africa lag in mandatory IPE to a greater extent where participation seems to be voluntary for the most part. Over half of the respondents have reported using one or more interprofessional competency frameworks in their IPE programs. The involvement of patients or family in IPE programs is also limited to just over one third of respondents, with the USA and Canada and Australia among the highest, and Africa and South America and Mexico among the lowest. About half of respondents in this study reported providing interprofessional faculty development to their faculty and facilitators. The open-text respondents expressed the need for motivated, dedicated, and trained IPE faculty, staff, and students. Respondents also noted that limited understanding of IPE, lack of recognition of IPE for promotion, insufficient preparatory time, heavy teaching workloads and other commitments that limit capacity to engage, and lack of mentoring and IPE champions create challenges for engaging faculty in IPE.
Over two thirds of the institutions indicated that they either do not have an external evaluation/audit of their IPE programs or were unsure whether an external audit had occurred, with Africa, Europe, and Asia reporting the highest uncertainty or no external evaluations/audits of their IPE programs. Despite the lack of external evaluations/audits, many of the respondents indicated that they evaluated student achievement of interprofessional collaborative competencies.
Almost half of all respondents globally indicated that their institutions were rarely or not involved in IPE-related scholarly work or research, with only less than one tenth reporting that they were very involved. Challenges to successful implementation of IPE scholarly work were attributed to inadequate administrative support, lack of funding, tribalism and hegemony, little motivation, poor attitudes regarding IPE, data management difficulties, and limited dedicated time for research. Yet, respondents also noted the need to generate evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of IPE in preparing collaborative practice ready graduates.
To conclude, IPE continues to be offered to varying degrees based on geographical and economic factors. Data indicated that there is further potential for movement towards establishing more IPE programs globally. There was variability in how IPE programs were governed, with some regions reporting the existence of centralized offices, while others still were without coordinating bodies. As might be expected, IPE program leadership followed suit, as did funding for IPE which differed greatly worldwide. Collaboration and engagement in IPE were dependent on who was involved. Multi-institutional collaboration appears to be thriving in many of the reporting regions, whereas student and patient engagement/participation require more work; so too do faculty development initiatives, evaluation/assessment, and research.
At the global level, over half of the institutions reported collaborating with other academic institutions with those in North America reporting the highest collaboration, and those in Africa the lowest.
To read the full Final Report publication, please follow the link here.