Table 6 Modified Kirkpatrick’s framework (Barr et al.’s six-level classification adaptation) [155]

Level 1

Participant reaction

Learners’ views on the learning experience and its interprofessional nature

• Participants reported decreased stress [133, 149, 151]

• Participants had a positive experience with the intervention [3, 57, 138]

Level 2a

Change in own attitudes and change in attitudes towards team members of the interprofessional groups

• Increased empathic tendency [130, 135, 146, 150, 153]

• Participants reported increased empathy [41, 55, 83]

• Improved self-reported ability to show empathy [54, 107]

Level 2b

Change in knowledge or skills

Including knowledge and skills related to the interprofessional activity

• Improvement in self-rated empathy scores using validated scales [1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, 19, 47,49,49, 52, 60, 61, 65, 68, 71,73,73, 75, 78, 79, 82, 87, 90, 94,96,96, 100, 104, 106, 108, 110, 114, 121, 123, 124, 127, 132, 137, 141]

• Increased understanding of empathy from analysis of reflections or artworks [9, 51, 67, 71, 84, 92, 136, 139]

Level 3

Behavioural change

Identify individual transfer of

interprofessional learning

• Improved empathic communication with standardised patients [2, 5, 7, 13, 15, 17, 40, 46, 50, 56, 60, 64, 88, 91, 99, 111, 112, 115,117,118,118, 120, 134, 147].

• Increased confidence with clinical interactions [77, 105, 126, 143, 144]

Level 4a

Change in organisational practice

Wider change in organisational practice and delivery of care

• Increased sense of belonging among participants [122]

• Reduced participant burnout [59, 140, 152]

Level 4b

Change in clinical outcome

Improvement in patient care

• Increased emphatic communication or attitudes with patients [6, 42, 43, 53, 62, 98, 103, 119]

• Improved patient satisfaction [38, 39, 85]

• Barriers to empathy and administrative changes to curb them were identified by participants [66, 70, 142]

• Participants identified lapses in patient care [63]

• Improved patient rated empathy score [12]