Scholarlink

Background <p>Interprofessional Education (IPE) is the cornerstone of modern healthcare education. When combined with Public and Patient Involvement (PPI), it becomes essential in preparing healthcare professionals to collaborate effectively while fostering person-centered care skills. However, PPI implementation in IPE within undergraduate healthcare education remains inconsistent and poorly understood.</p> Methods <p>An international, cross-sectional online survey was conducted with undergraduate healthcare students and academic staff. The questionnaire addressed the nature of PPI in IPE, curricular integration, preparedness, perceived educational benefits, and institutional implementation. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, grouped by most representative countries.</p> Results <p>Among 810 participants (630 students, 180 educators), most were from nursing and medicine, primarily in Portugal, Canada, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The highest proportions of respondents reporting adequate provision of PPI were observed in Canada (79%), Slovenia (70%), Belgium (59%), and the Netherlands (54%), where PPI was often implemented as a mandatory curricular component. Simulation and involvement in education (e.g., teaching) were the most common methods, with students and educators perceiving benefits in listening (88%), empathy (87%), and communication (86%). Although 60% of students felt prepared for PPI, educators were less confident about their peers’ preparedness. Nearly half of respondents had never participated in IPE, with lowest rates in Portugal, Slovenia, and the Netherlands. IPE was reported as adequately provided in a larger proportion by students (62%) than by educators (32%). Complementary learning outcomes of IPE and PPI were demonstrated.</p> Conclusion <p>PPI and IPE are widely valued and seen as feasible in healthcare education, yet implementation and participation vary across countries and disciplines. Strengthening institutional and educator preparedness, especially in regions with lower engagement, and leveraging the opportunity to integrate PPI and IPE can improve collaborative, patient-centred training.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Patient and public involvement and interprofessional education in undergraduate healthcare programs: an international survey study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月26日

查看全文
  • Phaedra Locquet,
  • Chi Pakarinen,
  • Danielle Derijcke,
  • Matilde Rei Leal,
  • Carolina Garcez,
  • Cathy Kline,
  • Dante N. Mulder,
  • Koen Goffings,
  • Adrijana Svenšek,
  • Lucija Gosak,
  • Matthijs H. Bosveld,
  • Silva Mitchell,
  • Ricardo J. O. Ferreira

摘要

Background

Interprofessional Education (IPE) is the cornerstone of modern healthcare education. When combined with Public and Patient Involvement (PPI), it becomes essential in preparing healthcare professionals to collaborate effectively while fostering person-centered care skills. However, PPI implementation in IPE within undergraduate healthcare education remains inconsistent and poorly understood.

Methods

An international, cross-sectional online survey was conducted with undergraduate healthcare students and academic staff. The questionnaire addressed the nature of PPI in IPE, curricular integration, preparedness, perceived educational benefits, and institutional implementation. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, grouped by most representative countries.

Results

Among 810 participants (630 students, 180 educators), most were from nursing and medicine, primarily in Portugal, Canada, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The highest proportions of respondents reporting adequate provision of PPI were observed in Canada (79%), Slovenia (70%), Belgium (59%), and the Netherlands (54%), where PPI was often implemented as a mandatory curricular component. Simulation and involvement in education (e.g., teaching) were the most common methods, with students and educators perceiving benefits in listening (88%), empathy (87%), and communication (86%). Although 60% of students felt prepared for PPI, educators were less confident about their peers’ preparedness. Nearly half of respondents had never participated in IPE, with lowest rates in Portugal, Slovenia, and the Netherlands. IPE was reported as adequately provided in a larger proportion by students (62%) than by educators (32%). Complementary learning outcomes of IPE and PPI were demonstrated.

Conclusion

PPI and IPE are widely valued and seen as feasible in healthcare education, yet implementation and participation vary across countries and disciplines. Strengthening institutional and educator preparedness, especially in regions with lower engagement, and leveraging the opportunity to integrate PPI and IPE can improve collaborative, patient-centred training.