Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Readiness of Health Faculty Students Towards The Implementation of Interprofessional Education
Readiness of Health Faculty Students Towards The Implementation of Interprofessional Education
ABSTRACT
Interprofessional Education (IPE) is defined as two or more professional learnings altogether to improve the collaboration
and quality. The IPE is also a solution to the issue of professional fragmentation. Health faculties around the world
already implement IPE into their curricula to improve of health care services. In contrary, University of Andalas is still on
the planning stage to implement IPE where there is a necessity towards readiness data. This was a cross sectional
quantitative study to assess the readiness of health faculty students toward the implementation IPE by using Readiness
Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) as its instrument. A total of 756 students from health faculties at Andalas
University, including eight majors in medical and health, were participated in this study. Mostly the subjects were female
(84.39%) with the majority of age group between 20-24 years old (58.73). The students in every major mostly shown
good readiness which imply that they are ready to implement IPE in their leaning. However, there was a student marked
poor for readiness. For each domain in RIPLS, most students in every major also scored well. They shared similar
opinion for each domain. This study could describe the profile of readiness towards IPE implementation. But, this study
could not determine any related factors to students’ readiness.
Keywords: Health Faculty, Interprofessional Education, Readiness Interprofessional Learning Scale, Student
and giving suggestion for further development in faculties. collaboration, negative professional identity, positive
[7][11]-[15] professional identity, and role and responsibility. [16]-
In the Andalas University, IPE is not implemented yet. [19] The result of the returned questionnaires were
In order to implement it, data of internal stakeholders’ concluded into three categories based on total point. If the
readiness are needed. The only study related to IPE and total point was equal or more than 70, then the readiness
readiness towards its implementation at Andalas was good. If it was between 44 and 69 then the readiness
University was performed by Devenski et.al. [3] , in the was moderate. Lastly, if it was less than 44, the readiness
Faculty of Medicine. The topic was students’ readiness was poor. [17] The data were analysed by using univariate
toward the implementation of IPE. The study showed 82% analysis to summarize the readiness of students towards
students were in good category of readiness towards IPE the implementation of IPE.
implementation while the lecturers also ready to
implement IPE but in need for further socialization, Table 2. Modified RIPLS item of questionnaire
preparation with institutional support. [3]
Questions
2. METHOD 1. Learning with other students will help me
becoming a more effective member of a health
2.1 Design and Sample care team
2. Patients would ultimately benefit if health-care
This was a cross-sectional study with quantitative students worked together to solve patient
method conducted from June 2019 until December 2019 at problems
Andalas University, West Sumatera, Indonesia. We aimed
3. Shared learning with other health-care students
to assess the readiness of students in health faculties
will increase my ability to understand clinical
towards the future implementation of IPE by using
modified Readiness Interprofessional Learning Scale
problems
(RIPLS). 4. Learning with health-care students before
qualification would improve relationships after
We performed the study to the registered students at qualification
the Health Faculties in odd semester, academic year 5. Communication skills should be learned with
2019/2020. There were five faculties included, the Faculty other healthcare students
of Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, 6. Shared learning will help me to think positively
Faculty of Nursing and Faculty of Public Health with eight about other professionals
majors in total, covering up to clinical phase students. 7. For small group learning to work, students need to
Those majors were medical, dentistry, nursing, midwifery, trust and respect each other
pharmacy, public health, nutrition and psychology. 8. Team-working skills are essential for all health
However, the public health, nutrition, and psychology care students to learn
have no clinical phase in their curriculum unlike the other 9. Shared learning will help me to understand my
five. own limitations
10. I don’t want to waste my time learning with other
The sample size was determined by using proportional health care students
random sampling from the total of 4,747 students in 11. It is not necessary for undergraduate health-care
population. The minimum sample size was counted as 407
students to learn together
students.
12. Clinical problem-solving skills can only be
learned with students from my own department
2.2 The Instrument of Study 13. Shared learning with other health-care students
will help me to communicate better with patients
The readiness of students was measured by using and other professionals
modified RIPLS. It was a 19-questions questionnaire with 14. I would welcome the opportunity to work on
5 points Likert scale which were divided into favourable small-group projects with other health-care
(positive) questions and unfavourable (negative) questions.
students
The items explored three aspects of interprofessional
15. Shared learning will help to clarify the nature of
education. First, the recognition of teamwork and
collaboration, along with the content and method for patient problems
subjects to work on Interprofessionally. Second, exploring 16. Shared learning before qualification will help me
the positive and negative aspects of professional identity. becoming a better team worker
Lastly, the perceptions about roles and responsibilities of 17. The function of nurses and therapists are mainly
professions. In this study, we describe the data according to provide support for doctors
to the four domain in RIPLS, which include teamwork and 18 I’m not sure what my professional role will be
19. I have to acquire much more knowledge and skills
than other health-care students
381
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 506
The data will be presented in form of distributive table to (638 F vs 118 M; 84.39% F vs 15.61% M). From the
explain the readiness of health faculties’ students towards the background of major, most students came from
implementation of IPE. medical major (25.79%), followed by pharmacy
(15.74%), dentistry (13.49%), public health
Ethical permission to explore students’ perspective was (12.83%), nursing (12.57%), midwifery (7.80%),
affirmed by the Ethical Committee of Medical Faculty at psychology (6.61%) and lastly nutrition (4.76%). In
Andalas University No.212/KEP/FK/2019. term of academic phase, students of clinical phase
(five majors which have clinical phase) gave 30.69%
3. RESULTS (232) from total subjects. More than fifty per cents
A total of 756 students, who came from eight major in five subject (58.73%) were in the age group 20-24 years
health faculties including preclinical (academic year 2016, old. The following group was 15-19 years old
2017, 2018, and 2019) and clinical phase students, were eligible (36.90%) and the least was in the age group more than
subject of the study. There were more female students were 24 years old (4.37%).
participated in this study
In every major, mostly students who participated in this Table 4. Distribution of Students’ Readiness by Majors
study were in aged group 20-24 years old, except those
from three majors; nutrition, public health, and psychology Readiness
whom mostly aged between 15-19 years old. The readiness Good Moderate Poor
among the health faculty students based on this study N % N % N %
showed a good result. The majority of the students had a Pre-clinical Phase
Nutrition 38 97.44 1 2.56 0 0.00
good perception and showing readiness toward the Public Health 87 89.69 9 9.28 1 1.03
implementation of IPE (88.36%). The other 11.51% Psychology 41 82.00 9 18.00 0 0.00
students reflected having moderate level of readiness and Nursing 61 95.31 3 4.69 0 0.00
only one student shown a poor readiness by the result of Midwifery 38 100 0 0.00 0 0.00
RIPLS. The comparison between readiness’s in both Dentistry 42 91.30 4 8.70 0 0.00
genders had shown a bigger number of female students Medical 110 95.65 5 4.35 0 0.00
with good readiness than male students. It was affected by Pharmacy 67 89.33 8 10.67 0 0.00
the fact that the distribution of gender wasn’t balance Clinical Phase
enough, presented by ratio of female to male almost 5.5 to Nursing 31 100 0 0.00 0 0.00
1. Based on its distribution, 83.90% male students had Midwifery 21 100 0 0.00 0 0.00
good perceptions while the remains 16.10% were in Dentistry 44 78.57 12 21.43 0 0.00
Medical 56 70.00 24 30.00 0 0.00
moderate one. In the group of female students, 89.97%
Pharmacy 43 97.73 1 2.27 0 0.00
had good readiness, 9.87% had moderate readiness, and
lastly 0.16% had poor readiness. Table 4 shows the most subjects with good readiness came
from pre-clinical phase of midwifery students, clinical
382
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 506
nursing students, and clinical midwifery students (100% readiness in every batch. However, the clinical phase
respectively). While the lowest number of students with students had the lowest amount of students with good
good readiness came from clinical medical students (70%). readiness (84.05%), in contrary with Batch 2018 (95.04%).
The clinical phase medical students had the most students But the only one who contributed to poor readiness was
with moderate readiness (30.00%), followed by dentistry Batch 2016 (0.93%).
(21.43%) and psychology (18.00%). The only major with
poor readiness was the public health (1.03%). As mentioned before, RIPLS have four domains. This
study showed that students from each health major had
similar opinion about every domain in RIPLS. The
Table 5. Students’ Readiness based on Admission Batch students mostly had good opinion about each domain.
However, the medical students showed the closest gap
Batch Readiness
between students number in good with moderate one,
Good Moderate Poor
N % N % N % except in “Teamwork and Collaboration” domain, where
2016 98 91.59 8 7.48 1 0.93 the nutrition’s students had the closest one. Only Public
2017 109 87.20 16 12.80 0 0.00 Health students had poor opinion about “Teamwork and
2018 134 95.04 7 4.96 0 0.00 Collaboration” domain (2.1%) and “Positive Professional
2019 143 94.70 8 5.30 0 0.00 Identity” domain (2.1%). Meanwhile, in “Positive
Clinical phase 195 84.05 37 15.95 0 0.00 Professional Identity” domain, Public Health students and
Medical students had poor opinion (2.1% and 1%
Generally, every batch is ready to implement IPE. It is respectively). In addition, the medical students also had
seen by the highest frequency of students with good poor opinion with “Role and Responsibility” domain along
with Pharmacy’s students (0.5% and 0.8% respectively).
383
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 506
384
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 506
385
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 506
Jounal of Medical Education, Vol. 7, 2018. [24]. Call for Papers. The historical context of
interprofessional education and collaboration. J
[14]. Susanti, D, Wulandari, H, Juaeriah, R, Dewi, S.
interprof care, Vol. 26, 2012, pp. 353-354.
Penerapan interprofessional education (IPE) pada
kelas ibu balita oleh mahasiswa tenaga kesehatan [25]. Reeves, S, MacMillan, K and Van Soeren, M
untuk meningkatkan sikap ibu terhadap kesehatan Leadership within interprofessional health and
balita di kota CImahi. JSK, Vol. 3, 2017. social care teams: a socio-hystorical analysis of key
trials and tribulation. J Nurs Manag, Vol. 18, 2010.
[15]. Toman, K, Probandari, A and Timor, A. s.l.The
pp. 258-264.
interprofessional education (IPE): The community
outcomes of health sevices within collaboration
practices in Faculty of Medicine, Sebelas Maret
University. Nexus Pendidikan Kedokteran dan
Kesehatan, Vol. 5, 2016.
[16]. Parsell, G and Bligh, J. s.l. The development of a
questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care
students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS).
Medical Education, Vol. 33, , 1999. pp. 95-100.
[17]. Fauziah, FA. Analisis gambaran persepsi dan
kesiapan mahasiswa profesi FK UGM terhadap
interpofessional education. Yogyakarta : Universitas
Gajah Mada, 2009.
[18]. Visser, CLF, Wilschut, JA, van der Burgt,
SME, Croiset, G, Kusukar, RA. The association
of Readiness for Interprofessional Learning with
empath, motivation and professional identity
evelopment in medical students. BMC Medical
Education, Vol. 18, 2018.
[19]. Talwalkar, JS, Fahs, DB, Kayingo, G, Wong,
R, Jeon, S, Honan, L. Readiness for
interprofessional learning among healthcare
professional students. Vol. 7, 2016, pp. 144-148.
[20]. Woermann, Weltsch, L, Kunz, A, Stricker, D,
Guttormsen, SAttitude towards and Readiness for
Interprofessional Education in Medical and Nursing
Students of Bern. GMS Journal of Medical
Education, Vol. 33, 2016.
[21]. Rossler, KL and Kimble, LP. Capturing
readiness to learn and collaboration as explored
with an interprofessional simulation scenario: A
mixed-methods research study, Nurse Educ
Today,2015.
[22]. Salih, S, Gameraddin, M, Kamal, S, Alsadi, M,
Tamboul, J, Alsultan, K. The readiness for
interprofessional education (IPE) in the school
setting among the internship students of applied
medical sciences at Taibah University.
Advances in Medical Education Practice, 2019,
pp. 843-848.
[23]. Roopnarine, R and Boeren, E. Applying the
Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale
(RIPLS) to medical, veterinary and dual degree
Master of Public Health (MPH) students at a private
medical institution. Plos ONE, Vol. 15, 2020.
386