Search

Educating health care professionals for working in interprofessional teams is a key preparation for roles in modern healthcare. Interprofessional teams require members who are competent in their roles. Self-assessment instruments measuring interprofessional competence (IPC) are widely used in educational preparation, but their ability to accurately and reliably measure competence is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to identify variations in the characteristics and use of self-report instruments measuring IPC. Following a systematic search of electronic databases and after applying eligibility criteria, 38 articles were included that describe 8 IPC self-report instruments. A large variation was found in the extent of coverage of IPC core competencies as articulated by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Each instrument's strength of evidence, psychometric performance and uses varied. Rather than measuring competency as "behaviours", they measured indirect proxies for competence, such as attitudes towards core interprofessional competencies. Educators and researchers should identify the most appropriate and highest-performing IPC instruments according to the context in which they will be used. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The previously developed Postoperative Recovery Profile (PRP) questionnaire is intended for self-assessment of general recovery after surgery. The aim of this study was to further evaluate the questionnaire regarding the construct validity and ability to discriminate recovery profiles between groups. Furthermore, the item variables of greatest importance during the progress of recovery were investigated. Post-operative recovery was assessed during the period from discharge to 12 months after lower abdominal and orthopaedic surgery. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and a global recovery scale. Recovery profiles of the diagnose groups were displayed by the cumulative proportion recovered participants over time. The importance of item variables was investigated by ranking ordering. A total of 158 patients were included. Support was given for good construct validity. The result showed that 7.6% of all possible pairs were disordered when comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and the global recovery scale. Twelve months after discharge the PRP assessments discriminated significantly the recovery profiles of the abdominal and orthopaedic groups. The variable pain was one of the top five most important issues at each follow-up occasion in both study groups. The importance of the item variables was thereby emphasized. The PRP questionnaire allows for evaluation of the progress of post-operative recovery, and can be useful to assess patient-reported recovery after surgical treatment both on individual and group levels. Knowledge about recovery profiles can assist clinicians in determining the critical time points for measuring change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]