Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Pre- and post- mean scores and differences on survey scales for interprofessional collaboration and competencies among VIP-CARES Project students

From: Measuring interprofessional competencies and attitudes among health professional students creating family planning virtual patient cases

Interprofessional (IP) Attitudes section adapted from Memorial University Questionnaire (Five point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) Mean score of all participants before M (SD) Mean score of all participants after M (SD) Mean score differences for each participant M d (SD d ) p-value
Number of completed surveys n = 26 n = 26   
IP learning will help students to understand their own professional limitations. 4.4 (0.6) 4.5 (0.6) 0.0 (0.7) 1.00
Developing an IP patient/client care plan is excessively time consuming. 2.6 (0.8) 2.3 (0.8) −0.3 (0.9) 0.11
The IP approach makes the delivery of care more efficient. 4.2 (0.7) 4.2 (0.5) 0.0 (0.6) 0.74
Developing a care plan with other team members avoids errors in delivering care. 4.2 (0.7) 4.3 (0.7) +0.2 (0.7) 0.20
Working in an IP manner unnecessarily complicates things most of the time. 1.8 (0.5) 1.8 (0.6) +0.1 (0.8) 0.44
The IP approach improves the quality of care to patients/clients. 4.6 (0.5) 4.3 (0.7) −0.3 (0.7) 0.02a
In most instances, the time required for IP consultations could be better spent in other ways. 2.0 (0.7) 2.0 (0.7) −0.2 (0.9) 0.44
IP approach permits health professionals to meet the needs of family caregivers as well as patients. 4.0 (0.6) 4.0 (0.7) 0.0 (0.9) 0.83
Team meetings foster communication among team members from different disciplines. 4.1 (0.6) 4.4 (0.6) +0.2 (0.9) 0.18
IP learning will help students think positively about other health care professionals. 4.3 (0.6) 4.3 (0.8) 0.0 (0.8) 0.81
Clinical info can only be learned effectively when taught within one’s own department. 1.9 (0.9) 1.8 (0.6) −0.1 (0.7) 0.74
Students in my professional group would benefit from IP small group projects. 4.2 (0.8) 4.2 (0.7) +0.1 (0.7) 0.37
It is not necessary for undergraduate health care students to learn together. 1.8 (0.7) 1.7 (0.7) −0.1 (0.6) 0.48
IP work before qualification would improve working relationships after qualification. 4.2 (0.6) 4.2 (0.9) 0.0 (1.0) 0.78
IP work helps undergraduates to become more effective team members. 4.3 (0.6) 4.3 (0.9) 0.0 (1.1) 0.64
Competencies from the CanMEDS section (Ten point Likert Scale: 1 = Below Expections, 10 = Exceptional)
Number of completed surveys n = 26 n = 26   
Communicator 6.4 (0.6) 6.7 (1.2) +0.3 (0.9) 0.12
Collaborator 6.7 (1.2) 6.9 (1.1) +0.3 (1.0) 0.18
Health Advocate 6.2 (1.2) 6.8 (1.3) +0.5 (1.1) 0.05a
Manager 5.6 (1.5) 6.3 (1.3) +0.6 (1.1) 0.02a
Medical Expert 5.0 (1.1) 5.7 (1.4) +0.6 (1.3) 0.03a
Professional 7.3 (1.4) 7.2 (1.1) −0.1 (0.9) 0.64
Scholar 6.3 (1.3) 6.8 (1.5) +0.4 (1.6) 0.19
Competencies from the CIHC section (Ten point Likert Scale: 1 = Below Expections, 10 = Exceptional)
Number of completed surveys n = 22 n = 26   
Interprofessional Communication 6.2 (1.2) 7.0 (1.2) +0.7 (1.6) 0.04a
Patient Centered Care 6.5 (1.2) 6.9 (1.5) +0.4 (1.3) 0.24
Role Clarification 6.0 (1.3) 7.0 (1.3) +0.9 (1.3) 0.01a
Team Functioning 6.3 (1.3) 7.2 (1.5) +0.8 (1.7) 0.05a
Collaborative Leadership 5.9 (1.1) 6.9 (1.4) +0.9 (1.4) 0.01a
Interprofessional Conflict Resolution 5.7 (1.5) 6.2 (1.6) +0.6 (1.5) 0.10
  1. aStatistically significant result