http://informahealthcare.com/jic ISSN: 1356-1820 (print), 1469-9567 (electronic) J Interprof Care, 2015; 29(1): 73–75 ! 2015 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.917613
SHORT REPORT
Student evaluations of an interprofessional education experience in pain management Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos1, Karen Juckes2, Dale Dirkse1, Cathy Cuddington3, Kirstie Walker1, Paul Bruno4, Gill White5, Lisa Ruda6 and Myrna Pitzel Bazylewski7 1
Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 3School of Physical Therapy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 4Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 5College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 6Pharmacy Services, Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, and 7Faculty of Social Work, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada Abstract
Keywords
Interprofessional education (IPE) is vital to healthcare professionals and is especially relevant in the context of pain management. Despite its importance, it is often difficult to provide given limited time and resources and challenges with coordinating schedules across professions. This study explored satisfaction with a one-day IPE workshop on pain management. Seventy-three students from seven professions completed a questionnaire evaluating the workshop. Results suggested that students rated all aspects of the workshop highly, but particularly valued hearing client’s experiences with pain. Furthermore, students perceived that their knowledge of pain and interprofessional relationships improved following the workshop. Differences emerged between professions, with students classified as psychosocial reporting greater satisfaction with the IPE than students from biomedical professions. This study supports research previously conducted on IPE in pain management and suggests that when time and resources are constrained, there is value in offering a brief IPE workshop on pain management.
Case-based learning, evaluation research, interprofessional education, interprofessional learning, pain education History Received 11 October 2013 Revised 21 March 2014 Accepted 21 April 2014 Published online 14 May 2014
Introduction
Background
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has acknowledged the importance of interprofessional education (IPE) in moving forward with collaborative practice and improved health outcomes (WHO, 2010). A recent summit identified IPE as particularly important to the care of individuals experiencing pain (Fishman et al., 2013). Due to the multidimensional nature of pain, effective pain management often requires collaborative approaches among healthcare professions (Gatchel, McGeary, McGeary, & Lippe, 2014). Research suggests that giving students from various professions the opportunity to interact and collaborate serves to improve communication skills and enhance future interprofessional relationships (e.g. Pollard & Miers, 2008; Wamsley et al., 2012). Despite its importance, IPE is often difficult to provide given limited time and resources and challenges coordinating schedules across professional groups. Therefore, it is important to develop and evaluate IPE experiences that are less demanding to implement. In this article, we contribute to the IPE literature by describing and evaluating a one-day lower resource intensive IPE workshop.
A one-day (7.5 hour) IPE pain management workshop was developed that involved a combination of learning approaches, including large group presentations from two keynote speakers (one discussed biopsychosocial factors in the transition from acute to chronic pain and the other discussed IPE), case presentations from two clients who both suffered from chronic pain, small interprofessional group case discussions and large workshop-wide discussions. In these discussions, students shared how their profession could contribute to understanding pain as described by the clients and also discussed barriers and facilitators to interprofessional care. In total, 114 students from a range of professions participated in the workshop.
Correspondence: Dr Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos, Department of Psychology, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2 Canada. E-mail: heather.hadjistavropoulos@ uregina.ca
Methods This observational study sought to examine student satisfaction with a one-day IPE workshop on pain management. Participants Seventy-three students participated in the evaluation including: 15 nursing (third and fourth year), 14 medical (fourth year), 14 kinesiology and health studies (first to fourth year), 8 pharmacy (fourth year), 4 physical therapy (second year masters students), 10 social work (fourth year) and 8 psychology students (graduate students).
74
H. D. Hadjistavropoulos et al.
J Interprof Care, 2015; 29(1): 73–75
Data collection
Ethical considerations
The post-workshop questionnaire asked students background questions (e.g. profession, year in program, experience with IPE and pain). Students then rated satisfaction with each of the following areas of the workshop: IPE experience; case-based learning; pain management; keynote and client speakers; and the program overall. Responses to questions were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. Questions pertaining to each area were averaged to create a mean satisfaction score for each area. Using a 1–10 rating scale where 1 ¼ hardly knew/know anything and 10 ¼ knew/know everything, students also rated their prior and current knowledge about pain management and roles of different professions in pain management. The questionnaire concluded with three open-ended questions asking about students’ favourite and least favourite aspects of the IPE workshop and suggestions for future IPE sessions.
This study was approved by the Universities of Regina and Saskatchewan.
Results Knowledge scores Students rated their knowledge of pain management before entering the IPE session as 4.83 (SD ¼ 1.84) and 6.45 (SD ¼ 1.55) after the session; this was a significant increase, t(64) ¼ 12.84, p ¼ 0.0001. Similarly, students reported a significant increase in knowledge of other professions after the workshop, with knowledge of other professions rated as 5.12 (SD ¼ 1.90) before and 6.99 (SD ¼ 1.37) after the workshop; t(64) ¼ 11.65, p ¼ 0.0001. Satisfaction scores All aspects of the conference were rated positively; with all satisfaction scores being 3.8 or higher (Table I). Students, however, expressed the greatest satisfaction with client presentations (M ¼ 4.55, SD ¼ 0.48) and the lowest satisfaction with keynote speakers (M ¼ 3.80, SD ¼ 0.59); this difference was significant, t(71) ¼ 9.41, p ¼ 0.0001.
Data analysis Means and standard deviations on the post-workshop questionnaire were examined to explore student knowledge of pain or interprofessional relationships before as compared to after the IPE session as well as to examine satisfaction with the IPE experience; case-based learning; pain management; keynote and client speakers; and the program overall. T-tests were used to compare: knowledge of pain and professional roles before and after the workshop; ratings of satisfaction with client versus keynote speaker presentations; satisfaction with IPE among those with or without previous IPE; and satisfaction with IPE among students with a biomedical versus psychosocial background.
Group comparisons Satisfaction scores were found to differ as a function of previous IPE (Table II). Students with no previous IPE (M ¼ 4.13, SD ¼ 0.43, n ¼ 37) reported greater IPE satisfaction scores than students who had previous IPE (M ¼ 3.88, SD ¼ 0.60, n ¼ 36), t(71) ¼ 2.02, p ¼ 0.05. Comparison of biomedical students (55 students from nursing, medicine, kinesiology and health studies,
Table I. Satisfaction scores by professional group. Mean score 1–5 scale IPE Case-based learning, Pain education, Overall program, Keynote presentations, Client presentations, N mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)
Profession
Kinesiology/Health studies 14 4.07 (0.33) Medicine 14 3.80 (0.61) Nursing 15 3.91 (0.70) Pharmacy 8 3.98 (0.27) Physical therapy 4 4.07 (0.41) Psychology 8 4.21 (0.42) Social work 10 4.17 (0.64) Overall sample 73 4.00 (0.53)
4.22 4.10 4.30 4.02 3.93 4.46 4.35 4.22
(0.46) (0.42) (0.38) (0.70) (0.41) (0.51) (0.48) (0.48)
3.99 3.63 3.84 3.89 4.11 4.14 4.29 3.94
(0.37) (0.50) (0.75) (0.44) (0.14) (0.77) (0.44) (0.57)
3.83 3.57 4.10 3.97 3.80 4.13 3.71 3.87
(0.44) (0.47) (0.56) (0.35) (0.27) (0.56) (0.41) (0.49)
4.00 3.34 3.86 3.86 3.44 4.15 3.89 3.80
(0.52) (0.62) (0.51) (0.31) (0.38) (0.60) (0.52) (0.57)
4.5 4.46 4.46 4.56 4.75 4.53 4.75 4.55
Table II. Summary statistics of tested within and between group differences. Variablea Pain Knowledge IPE Knowledge Satisfaction with presentations Satisfaction with IPE workshop Satisfaction with IPE workshop
Comparison
Mean
SD
N
Pre workshop Post workshop Pre workshop Post workshop Client sessions Keynote sessions Students with IPE Students no IPE Biomedical students Psychosocial students
4.83 6.45 5.12 6.99 4.55 3.80 3.88 4.13 3.85 4.22
1.84 1.55 1.90 1.37 0.48 0.59 0.60 0.43 0.54 0.60
73 73 73 73 73 73 36 37 55 18
t
p Value
12.84
0.0001b
11.65
0.0001b
9.41
0.0001b
2.02 2.48
0.05 0.02c
IPE ¼ interprofessional education and SD ¼ standard deviation. a Knowledge questions rated on a 1–10 scale; satisfaction questions rated on a 1–5 scale; higher scores signify greater knowledge/satisfaction. b p50.001. c p50.05.
(0.58) (0.44) (0.54) (0.40) (0.35) (0.47) (0.41) (0.47)
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.917613
pharmacy and physical therapy) to psychosocial students (18 students in psychology and social work) indicated that those in the psychosocial group (M ¼ 4.22, SD ¼ 0.60) reported greater satisfaction with the pain education compared to students in the biomedical group (M ¼ 3.85, SD ¼ 0.54), t(71) ¼ 2.48, p ¼ 0.02. Open-ended comments Analysis of student feedback suggested that students valued interacting and collaborating with students from other professions and appreciated the opportunity to learn from client presentations. Students expressed lower satisfaction with the keynote presentations, noting that they preferred practical content over scientific content. Suggestions for future IPE sessions surrounded changing the content of the keynote presentations and inviting a more even distribution of students from various professions.
Student evaluations of interprofessional education
75
differential benefits according to profession. Inherent limitations exist with the use of self-reported evidence of learning; with a tendency for individuals to naturally report knowledge growth due to participation. In order to strengthen IPE’s evidence, this limitation should be explored and complemented with other methodologies. This study supports research previously conducted on IPE in pain management (Watt-Watson et al., 2004) and contributes to the literature suggesting that when resources are limited and time is constrained, it is feasible and beneficial to students to participate in brief, time-limited IPE workshops.
Declaration of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors were responsible for the writing and content of this article.
References Discussion Students rated all components of the IPE experience in pain management workshop highly; however, particularly valued hearing clients share their experiences and perspectives. This finding is consistent with previous findings in an undergraduate pain curriculum (Watt-Watson et al., 2004). Another key finding was that this one-day workshop significantly increased knowledge of pain management and of the roles of other professions. This finding is important because it shows significant change after a one-day (7.5 hours) workshop. Other IPE experiences in the area of pain have shown benefits over a 20-hour pain curriculum (Watt-Watson et al., 2004), but can be difficult to implement in terms of cost and scheduling (Gilbert, 2005). The increase in perceived knowledge after our shorter program is encouraging. Differences in satisfaction with the IPE experience arose between professions with students classified as psychosocial reporting greater satisfaction with the IPE than students from biomedical professions. This difference, however, may reflect that the biomedical group also reported greater prior experience with pain education (2–4 hours) than the psychosocial group (52 hours); however, future research is warranted to clarify the
Fishman, S.M., Young, H.M., Lucas Arwood, E., Chou, R., Herr, K., Murinson, B.B., Watt-Watson, J., et al. (2013). Core competencies for pain management: Results of an interprofessional consensus summit. Pain Medicine, 14, 971–981. Gatchel, R.J., McGeary, D.D., McGeary, C.A., & Lippe, B. (2014). Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: Past, present, and future. American Psychologist, 69, 119–130. Gilbert, J.H. (2005). Interprofessional learning and higher education structural barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 87–106. Pollard, K.C., & Miers, M.E. (2008). From students to professionals: Results of a longitudinal study of attitudes to pre-qualifying collaborative learning and working in health and social care in the United Kingdom. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22, 399–416. Wamsley, M., Staves, J., Kroon, L., Topp, K., Hossaini, M., Newlin, B., Lindsay, C., & O’Brien, B. (2012). The impact of an interprofessional standardized patient exercise on attitudes toward working in interprofessional teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 28–35. Watt-Watson, J., Hunter, J., Pennefather, P., Librach, L., Raman-Wilms, L., Schreiber, M., Lax, L., et al. (2004). An integrated undergraduate pain curriculum, based on IASP curricula, for six health science faculties. Pain, 110, 140–148. World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Retrieved from: http:// www.who.int/hrh/resources/framework_action/en/index.html
Copyright of Journal of Interprofessional Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
SHORT REPORT
Student evaluations of an interprofessional education experience in pain management Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos1, Karen Juckes2, Dale Dirkse1, Cathy Cuddington3, Kirstie Walker1, Paul Bruno4, Gill White5, Lisa Ruda6 and Myrna Pitzel Bazylewski7 1
Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 3School of Physical Therapy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 4Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 5College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 6Pharmacy Services, Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, and 7Faculty of Social Work, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada Abstract
Keywords
Interprofessional education (IPE) is vital to healthcare professionals and is especially relevant in the context of pain management. Despite its importance, it is often difficult to provide given limited time and resources and challenges with coordinating schedules across professions. This study explored satisfaction with a one-day IPE workshop on pain management. Seventy-three students from seven professions completed a questionnaire evaluating the workshop. Results suggested that students rated all aspects of the workshop highly, but particularly valued hearing client’s experiences with pain. Furthermore, students perceived that their knowledge of pain and interprofessional relationships improved following the workshop. Differences emerged between professions, with students classified as psychosocial reporting greater satisfaction with the IPE than students from biomedical professions. This study supports research previously conducted on IPE in pain management and suggests that when time and resources are constrained, there is value in offering a brief IPE workshop on pain management.
Case-based learning, evaluation research, interprofessional education, interprofessional learning, pain education History Received 11 October 2013 Revised 21 March 2014 Accepted 21 April 2014 Published online 14 May 2014
Introduction
Background
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has acknowledged the importance of interprofessional education (IPE) in moving forward with collaborative practice and improved health outcomes (WHO, 2010). A recent summit identified IPE as particularly important to the care of individuals experiencing pain (Fishman et al., 2013). Due to the multidimensional nature of pain, effective pain management often requires collaborative approaches among healthcare professions (Gatchel, McGeary, McGeary, & Lippe, 2014). Research suggests that giving students from various professions the opportunity to interact and collaborate serves to improve communication skills and enhance future interprofessional relationships (e.g. Pollard & Miers, 2008; Wamsley et al., 2012). Despite its importance, IPE is often difficult to provide given limited time and resources and challenges coordinating schedules across professional groups. Therefore, it is important to develop and evaluate IPE experiences that are less demanding to implement. In this article, we contribute to the IPE literature by describing and evaluating a one-day lower resource intensive IPE workshop.
A one-day (7.5 hour) IPE pain management workshop was developed that involved a combination of learning approaches, including large group presentations from two keynote speakers (one discussed biopsychosocial factors in the transition from acute to chronic pain and the other discussed IPE), case presentations from two clients who both suffered from chronic pain, small interprofessional group case discussions and large workshop-wide discussions. In these discussions, students shared how their profession could contribute to understanding pain as described by the clients and also discussed barriers and facilitators to interprofessional care. In total, 114 students from a range of professions participated in the workshop.
Correspondence: Dr Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos, Department of Psychology, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2 Canada. E-mail: heather.hadjistavropoulos@ uregina.ca
Methods This observational study sought to examine student satisfaction with a one-day IPE workshop on pain management. Participants Seventy-three students participated in the evaluation including: 15 nursing (third and fourth year), 14 medical (fourth year), 14 kinesiology and health studies (first to fourth year), 8 pharmacy (fourth year), 4 physical therapy (second year masters students), 10 social work (fourth year) and 8 psychology students (graduate students).
74
H. D. Hadjistavropoulos et al.
J Interprof Care, 2015; 29(1): 73–75
Data collection
Ethical considerations
The post-workshop questionnaire asked students background questions (e.g. profession, year in program, experience with IPE and pain). Students then rated satisfaction with each of the following areas of the workshop: IPE experience; case-based learning; pain management; keynote and client speakers; and the program overall. Responses to questions were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. Questions pertaining to each area were averaged to create a mean satisfaction score for each area. Using a 1–10 rating scale where 1 ¼ hardly knew/know anything and 10 ¼ knew/know everything, students also rated their prior and current knowledge about pain management and roles of different professions in pain management. The questionnaire concluded with three open-ended questions asking about students’ favourite and least favourite aspects of the IPE workshop and suggestions for future IPE sessions.
This study was approved by the Universities of Regina and Saskatchewan.
Results Knowledge scores Students rated their knowledge of pain management before entering the IPE session as 4.83 (SD ¼ 1.84) and 6.45 (SD ¼ 1.55) after the session; this was a significant increase, t(64) ¼ 12.84, p ¼ 0.0001. Similarly, students reported a significant increase in knowledge of other professions after the workshop, with knowledge of other professions rated as 5.12 (SD ¼ 1.90) before and 6.99 (SD ¼ 1.37) after the workshop; t(64) ¼ 11.65, p ¼ 0.0001. Satisfaction scores All aspects of the conference were rated positively; with all satisfaction scores being 3.8 or higher (Table I). Students, however, expressed the greatest satisfaction with client presentations (M ¼ 4.55, SD ¼ 0.48) and the lowest satisfaction with keynote speakers (M ¼ 3.80, SD ¼ 0.59); this difference was significant, t(71) ¼ 9.41, p ¼ 0.0001.
Data analysis Means and standard deviations on the post-workshop questionnaire were examined to explore student knowledge of pain or interprofessional relationships before as compared to after the IPE session as well as to examine satisfaction with the IPE experience; case-based learning; pain management; keynote and client speakers; and the program overall. T-tests were used to compare: knowledge of pain and professional roles before and after the workshop; ratings of satisfaction with client versus keynote speaker presentations; satisfaction with IPE among those with or without previous IPE; and satisfaction with IPE among students with a biomedical versus psychosocial background.
Group comparisons Satisfaction scores were found to differ as a function of previous IPE (Table II). Students with no previous IPE (M ¼ 4.13, SD ¼ 0.43, n ¼ 37) reported greater IPE satisfaction scores than students who had previous IPE (M ¼ 3.88, SD ¼ 0.60, n ¼ 36), t(71) ¼ 2.02, p ¼ 0.05. Comparison of biomedical students (55 students from nursing, medicine, kinesiology and health studies,
Table I. Satisfaction scores by professional group. Mean score 1–5 scale IPE Case-based learning, Pain education, Overall program, Keynote presentations, Client presentations, N mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD) mean (SD)
Profession
Kinesiology/Health studies 14 4.07 (0.33) Medicine 14 3.80 (0.61) Nursing 15 3.91 (0.70) Pharmacy 8 3.98 (0.27) Physical therapy 4 4.07 (0.41) Psychology 8 4.21 (0.42) Social work 10 4.17 (0.64) Overall sample 73 4.00 (0.53)
4.22 4.10 4.30 4.02 3.93 4.46 4.35 4.22
(0.46) (0.42) (0.38) (0.70) (0.41) (0.51) (0.48) (0.48)
3.99 3.63 3.84 3.89 4.11 4.14 4.29 3.94
(0.37) (0.50) (0.75) (0.44) (0.14) (0.77) (0.44) (0.57)
3.83 3.57 4.10 3.97 3.80 4.13 3.71 3.87
(0.44) (0.47) (0.56) (0.35) (0.27) (0.56) (0.41) (0.49)
4.00 3.34 3.86 3.86 3.44 4.15 3.89 3.80
(0.52) (0.62) (0.51) (0.31) (0.38) (0.60) (0.52) (0.57)
4.5 4.46 4.46 4.56 4.75 4.53 4.75 4.55
Table II. Summary statistics of tested within and between group differences. Variablea Pain Knowledge IPE Knowledge Satisfaction with presentations Satisfaction with IPE workshop Satisfaction with IPE workshop
Comparison
Mean
SD
N
Pre workshop Post workshop Pre workshop Post workshop Client sessions Keynote sessions Students with IPE Students no IPE Biomedical students Psychosocial students
4.83 6.45 5.12 6.99 4.55 3.80 3.88 4.13 3.85 4.22
1.84 1.55 1.90 1.37 0.48 0.59 0.60 0.43 0.54 0.60
73 73 73 73 73 73 36 37 55 18
t
p Value
12.84
0.0001b
11.65
0.0001b
9.41
0.0001b
2.02 2.48
0.05 0.02c
IPE ¼ interprofessional education and SD ¼ standard deviation. a Knowledge questions rated on a 1–10 scale; satisfaction questions rated on a 1–5 scale; higher scores signify greater knowledge/satisfaction. b p50.001. c p50.05.
(0.58) (0.44) (0.54) (0.40) (0.35) (0.47) (0.41) (0.47)
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.917613
pharmacy and physical therapy) to psychosocial students (18 students in psychology and social work) indicated that those in the psychosocial group (M ¼ 4.22, SD ¼ 0.60) reported greater satisfaction with the pain education compared to students in the biomedical group (M ¼ 3.85, SD ¼ 0.54), t(71) ¼ 2.48, p ¼ 0.02. Open-ended comments Analysis of student feedback suggested that students valued interacting and collaborating with students from other professions and appreciated the opportunity to learn from client presentations. Students expressed lower satisfaction with the keynote presentations, noting that they preferred practical content over scientific content. Suggestions for future IPE sessions surrounded changing the content of the keynote presentations and inviting a more even distribution of students from various professions.
Student evaluations of interprofessional education
75
differential benefits according to profession. Inherent limitations exist with the use of self-reported evidence of learning; with a tendency for individuals to naturally report knowledge growth due to participation. In order to strengthen IPE’s evidence, this limitation should be explored and complemented with other methodologies. This study supports research previously conducted on IPE in pain management (Watt-Watson et al., 2004) and contributes to the literature suggesting that when resources are limited and time is constrained, it is feasible and beneficial to students to participate in brief, time-limited IPE workshops.
Declaration of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors were responsible for the writing and content of this article.
References Discussion Students rated all components of the IPE experience in pain management workshop highly; however, particularly valued hearing clients share their experiences and perspectives. This finding is consistent with previous findings in an undergraduate pain curriculum (Watt-Watson et al., 2004). Another key finding was that this one-day workshop significantly increased knowledge of pain management and of the roles of other professions. This finding is important because it shows significant change after a one-day (7.5 hours) workshop. Other IPE experiences in the area of pain have shown benefits over a 20-hour pain curriculum (Watt-Watson et al., 2004), but can be difficult to implement in terms of cost and scheduling (Gilbert, 2005). The increase in perceived knowledge after our shorter program is encouraging. Differences in satisfaction with the IPE experience arose between professions with students classified as psychosocial reporting greater satisfaction with the IPE than students from biomedical professions. This difference, however, may reflect that the biomedical group also reported greater prior experience with pain education (2–4 hours) than the psychosocial group (52 hours); however, future research is warranted to clarify the
Fishman, S.M., Young, H.M., Lucas Arwood, E., Chou, R., Herr, K., Murinson, B.B., Watt-Watson, J., et al. (2013). Core competencies for pain management: Results of an interprofessional consensus summit. Pain Medicine, 14, 971–981. Gatchel, R.J., McGeary, D.D., McGeary, C.A., & Lippe, B. (2014). Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: Past, present, and future. American Psychologist, 69, 119–130. Gilbert, J.H. (2005). Interprofessional learning and higher education structural barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 87–106. Pollard, K.C., & Miers, M.E. (2008). From students to professionals: Results of a longitudinal study of attitudes to pre-qualifying collaborative learning and working in health and social care in the United Kingdom. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22, 399–416. Wamsley, M., Staves, J., Kroon, L., Topp, K., Hossaini, M., Newlin, B., Lindsay, C., & O’Brien, B. (2012). The impact of an interprofessional standardized patient exercise on attitudes toward working in interprofessional teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 28–35. Watt-Watson, J., Hunter, J., Pennefather, P., Librach, L., Raman-Wilms, L., Schreiber, M., Lax, L., et al. (2004). An integrated undergraduate pain curriculum, based on IASP curricula, for six health science faculties. Pain, 110, 140–148. World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Retrieved from: http:// www.who.int/hrh/resources/framework_action/en/index.html
Copyright of Journal of Interprofessional Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
